PRIVATE BUSINESS

Mersey Tunnels Bill (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
	To be further considered on Tuesday 1 July.

Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Euro

Mark Lazarowicz: If he will make a statement about his discussions with Scottish business leaders about preparations for the euro.

Iain Luke: What discussions he has had with the First Minister on the establishment of the Scottish committee for euro preparations.

Alistair Darling: I will chair the Scottish committee that will help to provide focus for euro preparations in Scotland. The Scottish Executive will be closely involved and will support the work of the committee. The First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister for Finance and Public Services will be members. The committee will also include representatives from business, the voluntary sector, consumers and local government. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I will be members of both the Chancellor's standing committee and the Scottish committee.

Mark Lazarowicz: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and welcome him to his new duties. Will he tell the House how he intends to involve Scottish business in the committee that is being set up? Does he accept that if the initiative is to be really successful it must be accompanied by local as well as national initiatives? Does he support such initiatives, especially the one that is being set up in Edinburgh?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The committee's membership must have a sufficiently wide brace to enable the Government to be properly informed as we prepare for the euro, if we decide that it would be in the country's national economic interest to join. It is also important generally that as we raise awareness of the implications and advantages of the euro we should encourage local initiatives. I am sure that many hon. Members would want to be involved in that.

Iain Luke: When my right hon. Friend is involved in deliberations as the chair of the committee, I hope that he will remember the sixth test that was coined by his predecessor: the actual cost to Scotland in jobs and wages if the delay before joining the euro is protracted. Will he ensure that his committee deliberates with a lot of speed and gets us to join the euro as quickly as possible?

Alistair Darling: As the Chancellor made clear in his statement on 9 June, five tests need to be met, and they were set out in 1997. The two most important are ensuring that there is convergence and that our economy is sufficiently flexible to deal with any shocks that might arise. The Chancellor also referred in his statement to the fact that if it were in our national economic interest to join the euro, we should do so. He also drew attention to the fact that some hon. Members must face the fact that if we did not join after meeting the tests, there would be a price to pay. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that one of the things that we must consider in this country, provided that the five tests are met and we believe that it is in the national economic interest to join, is the fact that we might pay a heavy price for our failure to join.

Jacqui Lait: It is clear from that answer that the part-time Secretary of State has binned the sixth euro test as fast as he binned Friends of Scotland. He came up with an impressive list of meetings that he will chair, so will he tell us how much time per year they will take out of his busy diary?

Alistair Darling: I would not expect the hon. Lady to know that it is not uncommon for a member of the Cabinet to sit on a variety of Cabinet committees on the euro and other matters—it is perfectly normal. I would have thought that rather than reflecting on my work load she might want to reflect on her party's position: no matter whether it was in the interests of this country to join the euro, she would be against it as a matter of principle, even if it would be advantageous for jobs and trade. Until she can respond to that point, she has little credibility on this or any other matter.

Alex Salmond: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State to his jobs. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), the Secretary of State's predecessor made a speech last month in which she argued that continuing to be outside the euro area would be deeply damaging to Scottish economic interests. Does he agree with that assessment, does he intend to make a specific assessment of Scottish convergence with the euro area, and can he really find the time to pursue his chairmanship of the euro preparations committee, given his many other responsibilities?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful, as always, for the hon. Gentleman's unqualified welcome. I, like many of my hon. Friends, welcome the fact that he chose to give up his other job in the Parliament in Holyrood and come back to his job here. We greatly appreciate that.
	The Chancellor set out our position on the euro, which is very clear: if we are to join, we must be satisfied that the five tests that he set out in 1997 have been met. He reported earlier this month that considerable progress had been made, but that there was still more to do on sustained convergence and flexibility. What matters at the end of the day is whether it is in the United Kingdom's national economic interest to join. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, as the voters of Scotland graphically reminded the party that the hon. Gentleman represents at the beginning of May.

Helen Liddell: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new responsibilities and wish him well. I commend to him the officials of the Scotland Office, who for the past four years have carried out their jobs with great professionalism and commitment, often in very difficult circumstances. The whole House should be indebted to them.
	Turning to the euro, the Chancellor identified the housing market as a significant inhibitor to convergence. The housing market in Scotland is significantly different from that in south-east England—with the exception, perhaps, of my right hon. Friend's constituency, where the market is similar. Housing and planning are devolved matters. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to take account of Scotland's unique housing issues?

Alistair Darling: Staff at the Scotland Office are, of course, experiencing dramatic changes as the constitution develops in this country. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: they are extremely loyal and dedicated, and will cope with all the changes that we have to face.
	My right hon. Friend is right that, in the main, the Scottish housing market is different from the market in south-east England, although, as she says, my Edinburgh constituency in south-east Scotland is remarkably similar in many respects. The Chancellor is fully aware of those differences. Indeed, much of what he said on 9 June concerned the need for us to make the necessary changes to ensure greater stability in the housing market throughout the country. That means that we have to take into account the variations in the regions and nations of the country.

Andrew Mitchell: During his discussions with the Scottish business community, has the Secretary of State identified any damage that has been done to Scotland by it remaining outside the euro?

Alistair Darling: Scottish business relies to a large extent on its ability to trade not just with the rest of the UK but with Europe. Most people in Scotland believe that if the conditions were met—certainly from a business point of view—there would be huge benefits to Scottish business. Of course, there are some people who take a slightly different view, just as there are in the rest of the country, but it is our view, which I believe is right for this country's future, that if it is in our economic interests to join in terms of jobs, trade and a series of other considerations, we should do so. What I find incredible is the Conservative party's position—that even if it were in our economic interests to join, it would still say no because of its visceral dislike of all things European.

Pension Credit

Ann McKechin: What discussions he has had with senior citizen organisations regarding the take-up of the pension credit in Scotland.

Anne McGuire: I discussed the pension credit yesterday at the older people's consultative forum in Edinburgh. The Department for Work and Pensions, through its new Pension Service and a forthcoming media campaign, is active in ensuring that pensioners receive full information about the pension credit.

Ann McKechin: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. She will be aware that the benefit is valuable and will help many thousands of people in Scotland. Many elderly people are, unfortunately, unable to look after their own affairs, so has she discussed with the voluntary sector, local authorities and the Scottish Executive how we can ensure that such people benefit from this valuable new incentive?

Anne McGuire: My hon. Friend is correct. We need to ensure that those who are in receipt of care or who are looked after by family or carers are included. The most vulnerable pensioners have been specifically targeted since April this year with a specially designed direct mail pack, which is issued to carers or pensioners, and the campaign will continue until June 2004. As part of my ongoing discussions with the Scottish Executive, I will ensure that her points are fully taken on board in Scotland.

John Thurso: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, may I welcome the Secretary of State to his new duties? Is the Minister aware of the recent admission by the chair of the Inland Revenue to the Treasury Select Committee that the computers had serious problems with the tax credits, which had come as a bolt out of the blue? Given the complexity of the pension credit, what assurance can she give Scottish pensioners that the computers will work and the helplines will cope, bearing in mind that on 12 March 2002 the Secretary of State himself described the Department of Work and Pensions' computers as "decrepit"?

Anne McGuire: First, may I advise the hon. Gentleman that the decrepit computers have been replaced? Secondly, I assure him that the Pension Service has extensive experience of working with the complexity, as he put it, of the pension credit. Every effort will be made to ensure that pensioners who are eligible for the pension credit take it up. As he is well aware, the new pension credit will give people with small occupational pensions the benefit of savings that they accumulated throughout their working lives, so it is to be welcomed.

John McFall: May I follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)? Sir Nicholas Montagu, chairman of the Inland Revenue, was called before my Committee last week. He said that the dress rehearsal went well, but that when the curtain went up on day one it was a shambles. We do not want a shambles on day one, as the pension credit is good news for many elderly people in Scotland. Given that EDS is the IT company responsible, can the utmost pressure be put on it to ensure that the first day of a roll-out is good news, not bad news?

Anne McGuire: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the relevant Ministers are, of course, aware of the importance of getting the new pension credit right, and I am sure that the lessons of our experience and the situation that we inherited from the previous Government will be learned. My hon. Friend is correct—the pension credit is good news for pensioners across Scotland, and we should not lose sight of that core fact.

Peter Duncan: I am sure that the Minister is aware that pension credit take-up is dependent on pensioners' and senior citizens' organisations believing that it will make a difference to them and will not be negated by the action of other Departments? When will she resolve the dispute between the DWP and the Scottish Executive over the non-payment of attendance allowance, and thus allow pensioners in self-funded care to benefit? Does not that long-running conflict, which originated under the Secretary of State when he was at the DWP, not require the full-time input of a part-time Secretary of State for Scotland?

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman should be aware—in fact, he is aware—that what he calls a long-running conflict was resolved some years ago. I understand that Age Concern Scotland has raised a legal issue, which it is intent on pursuing but, as far as the UK Government and the Scottish Executive are concerned, this matter has been resolved.

Michael Connarty: After the trivia of the previous question, may I return to the important matter of support for pensioners? The minimum income guarantee was a great success for those who got it, but 20 per cent. of pensioners did not get it, either because they could not fill out the forms or because they could not get access to them. The difference with the pension credit is that we already have records of people with employment-based pensions through the Inland Revenue system. Is it not time that that system was used to seek out people with those extra pensions so that they can automatically be passported to the pension credit?

Anne McGuire: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I am not sure whether we can read across from the pension credit to the minimum income guarantee. This issue has been raised before at Scottish questions, and I can assure the House that the Department for Work and Pensions is trying every conceivable means of ensuring that pensioners who are eligible for the minimum income guarantee are advised of that fact. I again appeal to Scottish Members of Parliament, who are leaders in their own communities, not to miss the opportunity to highlight the importance of the minimum income guarantee to their pensioner constituents.

Air Transport

John Barrett: How many responses the Government has received to the "Future of Air Transport—Scotland" consultation document.

Alistair Darling: As of 23 June, we had received 1,097 responses to the questionnaire and 520 letters and e-mails.

John Barrett: I thank the new Secretary of State for that answer. Is he aware that figures he has just released to the House show that less than 3 per cent. of the 61,000 consultation documents were returned? Does he agree that in view of the importance of air transport to the economy, transport and the environment, in the remaining six days before the deadline for responses he ought to do everything he can to ensure an increased response?

Alistair Darling: It is important that everyone who wants to respond to the consultation does so, but for various reasons many people probably do not want to respond, and the Government cannot dragoon them into doing so. With regard to Edinburgh airport, in which the hon. Gentleman, like me, has an immediate interest, and other airports in Scotland, it is important that we get a wide range of views about the projected growth and that we plan accordingly. So far, as I said, we have had a large number of responses. It is a matter of live interest, as the hon. Gentleman knows, not just in Edinburgh but in Glasgow.
	In relation to the questionnaire, it is not surprising that many people who do not have any immediate views on the subject may choose not to respond. That does not weaken the strength of the consultation. We are giving people as much opportunity as possible to make their contribution, if they wish to do so.

Sandra Osborne: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to his new duties. He knows how anxious I am to see building work recommence on the new Scottish centre, which is so vital for the future of air transport in the UK. Can he tell the House when we are likely to receive an announcement in that regard?

Alistair Darling: In the not too distant future, I hope. My hon. Friend knows that I visited the Prestwick control centre last summer, and I am well aware of the fact that people in Prestwick and the surrounding area want the second centre to be built as soon as possible. May I reassure my hon. Friend and the House that a second centre is an essential part of the National Air Traffic Services strategy? It is necessary for operational reasons and for back-up. It is a great pity that it has taken such a time to get a decision, but I am optimistic that we will be able to say something in the not too distant future.

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a long discussion with himself about landing charges at BAA airports? He knows that Glasgow airport recently lost a BMI service from Cardiff, and easyJet has branded Scotland's airports as far too expensive. What will he say to himself in order to address the problem?

Alistair Darling: In relation to the charges, if there is any suggestion that BAA is not acting properly, there is provision in competition law for that to be investigated. One of the reasons that low-cost airlines have been able to cut their prices so significantly is that they have driven hard bargains with airports in order to reduce landing charges—in some cases down to pretty negligible amounts.
	The hon. Gentleman speaks from time to time about the need for a sustainable transport policy. There comes a point when someone somewhere must pay to renew airport infrastructure. I know, because I have spoken to just about everyone involved in the airline industry, that it is the view of some low-cost operators that that is someone else's problem. They want to drive a hard deal, and in some cases they are not interested in an airport being done up, because they are not willing to pay for the cost of that. For the long-term sustainability of air transport, we need to make sure that infrastructure is replaced and upgraded, and that must be paid for.
	If the hon. Gentleman has a specific complaint about BAA airports in Scotland, I am sure the competition authorities will be happy to hear from him.

Jacqui Lait: If the consultation on the right hon. Gentleman's airport strategy should suggest that increased capacity requires a northern hub at either Manchester or Edinburgh-Glasgow, how will he speak up for Scotland's airports and advise his fellow Cabinet members as Secretary of State for Transport?

Alistair Darling: When I set up the consultation exercise in July last year, the question was not Manchester versus Edinburgh or Glasgow; the question was whether it would be possible or desirable to have a Scottish hub airport. The hon. Lady may know, although perhaps the view from Beckenham is rather different, that that has been a long-running argument in Scotland. [Interruption.] The argument in central Scotland is between Edinburgh and Glasgow, both of which are in Scotland. I do not think there is a problem there.
	What I will have to decide during the course of this year, prior to publishing the White Paper at the end of it, is whether there is an argument for trying to build a hub airport in central Scotland or whether Edinburgh and Glasgow can carry on working in tandem, as they do at the moment. Frankly, that is the argument. Manchester is competing increasingly with airports in south-east England rather than Scotland, although people from Scotland use that airport because it is a very good one.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

Human Rights

Tam Dalyell: What human rights issues have been raised with her since 20 May.

Lynda Clark: Since 20 May, I have received intimation of 28 devolution issue minutes, all of which have concerned human rights issues. They were all raised in connection with criminal proceedings and concerned a wide range of matters including pre-trial delay, actions of police officers prior to arrest and surveillance carried out before the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 came into force.

Tam Dalyell: As a United Kingdom Law Officer, does the Advocate-General think that the Scottish and indeed English legal traditions are at ease with the Guantanamo Bay mentality of certain of those surrounding the President of the United States about not bringing to trial those Iraqis who have been put in custody, whatever they may have done?

Lynda Clark: I have the highest respect for both the Scottish and English legal traditions; of course, one of my jobs as Advocate-General is to explain the Scottish legal tradition to other countries. In the Adjournment debate that my hon. Friend recently secured, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), gave him some information about the situation of people who were detained. I have nothing to add.

Menzies Campbell: What consideration has the Advocate-General given to the human rights implications of the treaty with the United States Government entered into by the Home Secretary and published on 21 May, which provides for extradition without prima facie evidence of any offence having been committed and is also of retrospective application? Does not that treaty raise fundamental issues about the human rights of people in Scotland who may be subject to its provisions?

Lynda Clark: I regret to inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, as he well knows, the consideration that I give is in private, and any advice that I give, in accordance with normal convention, is not disclosed.

Devolution

Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues she has considered since 20 May.

Ann McKechin: What devolution issues have been raised with her since 20 May under the Scotland Act 1998.

Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised since 20 May.

Lynda Clark: All the 28 devolution issues intimated to me since 20 May have concerned human rights issues. I therefore refer the hon. Ladies to the reply I gave some moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Anne McIntosh: May I congratulate the hon. and learned Lady on retaining her post in the recent reshuffle, but express my disappointment that the part-time Secretary of State for Scotland has not remained in the Chamber to support her during questions?
	I wish to revert to a subject that I have raised before: the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 and its impact on agricultural tenancies and limited partnerships in Scotland. Will the Advocate-General please urgently give her advice on this issue, which is causing severe consternation among practising lawyers throughout Scotland, and especially among those specialising in agricultural holdings? It is having a severe impact of which she might not previously have been aware. Will she address the issue urgently?

Lynda Clark: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her congratulations, which I am sure are heartfelt. As far as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is concerned, as she well knows, the Law Officers are independent of all Secretaries of State, but I am sure that he is very busy.
	On the substantive matter that the hon. Lady raised, I am aware that she has raised it previously and flagged up concerns, which we take into account. However, it is not my role to advise individual members of the public or solicitors about the difficulties that they might be having. Individual constituents who are having difficulties can raise the matter, and if there is any ground for challenge they can take it up.

Ann McKechin: The Government recently announced proposals for a supreme court. Can my hon. and learned Friend advise me whether she intends to consult members of the Scottish legal profession and the Civic Society in Scotland about how that court should proceed?

Lynda Clark: I regularly have informal discussions with members of the legal profession about a whole range of subjects, and I am sure that that issue will come up from time to time. The responsible Secretary of State will undertake the formal consultation and the issues will be widely canvassed. Indeed, I was encouraged by hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Scottish constituencies to take part in that. Plainly, the supreme court is a matter of considerable interest in Scotland.

Annabelle Ewing: Does the Advocate-General agree with Lord Hope, the senior Scottish Law Lord, that the new supreme court would have to be distinct in all respects from the English legal system in order not to fall foul of the treaty of Union? Would this not be a timely opportunity to repatriate final jurisdiction over civil law in Scotland to Scottish courts?

Lynda Clark: There has been a long tradition of appeals from civil cases going to the House of Lords. As part of the general consultation, Lord Hope's comments will be taken into account, along with the many other comments that have been made. I will consider all the issues in due course.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was asked—

Legal Aid

David Kidney: What recent representations the Department has received in favour of increasing legal aid payment rates for criminal law practitioners.

David Lammy: My Department receives representations from a variety of sources. The most recent was from the Legal Aid Practitioners Group in March.

David Kidney: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the rest of the ministerial team on their appointments and wish them and the Department a very successful future.
	Does my hon. Friend accept that a growing number of criminal legal aid practitioners are giving up legal aid work because they cannot make it pay? More generally, is he aware of research by the Legal Services Commission showing that in as many as 2 million cases a year people with legal problems cannot find legal help? Does he share my concern that unless there is further reform and investment in the legal aid system its very viability is at stake, with the consequence for the criminal legal system that we would not have the bright, talented lawyers of the future for defence and prosecution work? If he shares that concern, what is he going to do about it?

David Lammy: I agree that criminal legal practitioners do a wonderful job in representing people from some of the most disadvantaged and socially excluded communities. Of course, they have raised, and continue to raise, concerns about their remuneration. My hon. Friend will understand that criminal practitioners, like many people who dedicate their lives to public service, will not receive the same amount as they would receive if they were in private practice. That is the decision that they make. He is wrong to suggest that there is a difficulty in the recruitment and retention of criminal legal practitioners. In fact, over the past few years there has been a loss of only 17 offices out of the 2,900 offices with criminal defence contracts. We continue to monitor the situation, and we are undertaking a widespread consultation on and review of legal aid to ensure that we have the best provision for the future.

Gary Streeter: Before the Minister authorises an increase in criminal law legal aid rates, will he make a real mark for himself in his new Department by organising a thorough review of the Legal Aid Board and its practices? When we live in a society in which someone who chooses to break into a house with the intention of stealing gets legal aid to bring an action for damages against the householder, has not the world gone barking mad; and is it any wonder that the general public are losing confidence in the Legal Aid Board?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will know that the former Lord Chancellor agreed to a consultation on the supply, demand and purchase of legal aid, which began on 5 June. It will continue for some months; let us see what the outcome is.

Criminal Justice Policy

Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities in relation to criminal justice policy.

Christopher Leslie: The Department for Constitutional Affairs will work closely with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to drive forward the Government's priority for reform of the criminal justice system. In respecting the authority of the courts, the Department will focus in particular on improving court performance, on reducing the number of ineffective trials, and on the better enforcement of criminal penalties, especially fines.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but I am sure that he will be aware that there is public concern about sentencing by judges. In the light of that, does he intend to set up an advisory board on the appointment of judges?

Christopher Leslie: As my hon. Friend knows, we have to respect the independence of the judiciary and the decisions that it makes on individual cases. On his second point, the Government will now consult on the creation of an independent judicial appointments commission, so that we can take the selection process of the judiciary out of the hands of politicians.

Patrick Cormack: That is all very well, but in the meantime, is the Lord Chancellor going to continue to appoint judges? If so, how is he going distance himself from the far more political Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs?

Christopher Leslie: The allegedly far more political Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is, indeed, the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor will continue with his obligations under the law in regard to the appointment of the judiciary until legislation is introduced to change that arrangement. There will be widespread consultation, and we envisage a consultation paper being published in the middle of July, with plenty of opportunities for all hon. Members to comment on the process.

David Heath: The formation of the new Department resembles a cunning plan by the Lord Chancellor of 1075, who, as hon. Members will recall, was Baldrick. Will the Minister confirm that the new Department has no additional judicial responsibilities? In fact, it has fewer than the previous Department had, because it has lost the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. Should there not be a shift of responsibility from the Home Office to the new Department in relation to sentencing and, possibly, penal matters? That would create a proper Department of Justice, which is what we were led to believe would be the function of the new Department.

Christopher Leslie: I commend the hon. Gentleman on his historical research. I was not familiar with that particular point. I hope that he supports in principle the moves to create a supreme court and an independent judicial appointments commission. Until legislation makes changes to the arrangements, the Department for Constitutional Affairs will continue to arrange the appointments to the judiciary, to administer the courts and a number of tribunals, to provide legal aid and legal services including the criminal defence service, to promote the reform and revision of the English civil law and to raise public confidence in the court system in general. That is a big and important task.

Keith Vaz: When the former Lord Chancellor gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department on 18 April, he said that the existing arrangements were perfectly satisfactory. Will the Minister tell us whether the previous Lord Chancellor was consulted about the changes, and what conversations have taken place between him and the present Lord Chancellor?

Christopher Leslie: I am aware of the exchange of correspondence between the previous Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister on these matters; that is in the public domain. The former Lord Chancellor resigned his post in that way and on amicable terms. It is important that we now focus on this crucial constitutional reform agenda, which involves reforms for a purpose, to ensure that we achieve a greater level of independence in the appointment of the judiciary and take the supreme court out of the second Chamber of Parliament. Discussions on these matters will be ongoing once we have published the consultation paper in the middle of July.

David Trimble: A judicial appointments commission has been set up in Scotland on a non-statutory basis. Are we to take it from what has been said today that there is no intention of doing that here, and that a judicial appointments commission on a non-statutory basis has definitely been ruled out?

Christopher Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Scotland already has an independent judicial appointments commission, and in Northern Ireland such a commission is in the process of being established. We feel that for England and Wales a statutory route is the best way forward, but we shall consult on the specific details of many of these matters. The right hon. Gentleman and others may want to raise questions and issues in the House.

Lord Chancellor

David Amess: What consultations the Department has had on how long the title of Lord Chancellor will remain in existence.

Christopher Leslie: Although there was no consultation in advance of the reshuffle, the Government recognise that creating a supreme court and an independent judicial appointments commission will mean abolishing the current role of the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, we will consult on these changes to ensure that the final details take full account of the constitutional importance of abolishing that post.

David Amess: Will the Minister now admit that this arrogant Government have handled the whole issue of the Lord Chancellor's Department appallingly? Is not the reality that the Government have held no meaningful consultations on this issue, and given the Prime Minister's complacent answer on 19 June, they have little intention of having any proper, meaningful consultation?

Christopher Leslie: I have to disabuse the hon. Gentleman of his views on this matter. We will be having a full consultation: a paper will be published on 14 July and consultation will run until, I think, November. I do not know how many members of the Conservative Opposition have been consulted on their own forthcoming reshuffle. I am looking to see if there is any reaction from their colleagues on the Front Bench. No, I do not think they know what will happen in their reshuffle. The decisions have been made, we are clear about the direction we are going for, and there will be widespread consultation.

Graham Allen: May I congratulate the two new Ministers on the Front Bench, and remind them, as they were probably at school at the time, that they are delivering on a long-standing commitment from the 1993 Labour party conference to establish a judicial appointments commission and a supreme court? Opposition Members whinge about this being done on the back of a fag packet, as one hon. Member said, but these policies have a long and honourable provenance. Many Labour Members are delighted that they are being implemented, and look forward to the creation of a fully fledged Ministry of Justice perhaps this time next year.

Christopher Leslie: I would not wish to comment on the latter part of my hon. Friend's contribution, but he has a long provenance of his own on these matters. He has written extensively on constitutional affairs, and he has long advocated many of the changes that are now moving forward. I am interested to know from Opposition Members whether they support a supreme court and an independent judicial appointments commission. They do not seem to have a policy.

William Cash: In an answer to me on Thursday 19 June, the Prime Minister admitted that the transfer of functions from the Lord Chancellor to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will be completed only when the position of Lord Chancellor is abolished. When will the transfer of functions order come in, and will we have to wait 18 months until the Act of Parliament that authorises it goes through?

Christopher Leslie: The Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 sets out the provisions for a transfer of functions order. We anticipate that an order will come forward quickly, and that will be done in the usual way.

William Cash: In the meantime, almost all the matters that the Minister has dealt with raise serious questions about the amount of money that will be made available and the accountability of the Minister and his colleague to answer those questions in the House. How can he justify answering questions on matters for which he is not directly accountable when there has been no transfer of statutory functions to him?

Christopher Leslie: I can do no more than appear before the House and account for the new Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is what my hon. Friend and I are doing today. We are open to be questioned on any of these matters, and we shall continue to answer those questions.

Courthouse (Colchester)

Bob Russell: If he will make a statement on progress with proposals for a new courthouse in Colchester.

David Lammy: It is anticipated that a new courthouse in Colchester will be ready for use during 2007. Work is now in progress on the outline business case for the public-private partnership contract.

Bob Russell: The Minister will be aware from the detailed briefing that we have been banging on about that matter for four or five years. We have had delay, dither, delay and dither. We have been promised that the private finance initiative will deliver a new courthouse speedily. Will he confirm that another year was wasted because his Department, whatever it was called in those days, spent a year trying to resolve whether Grays Thurrock court should close? That has caused delay across Essex.

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is about courthouses in the entirety of Essex. There has been a debate about whether Grays Thurrock court should close but a new, fit-for-the-purpose courthouse in Colchester is on the way by 2007. I think that the people of Colchester will thank the Government for giving them that by 2007.

Scotland Office

Alex Salmond: What the status is of the Scotland Office within the Department for Constitutional Affairs; and if he will make a statement.

Christopher Leslie: Staff in the Scotland Office retain their separate identity within the Department for Constitutional Affairs. They are accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for their decisions and actions on policy matters in the normal way.

Alex Salmond: In that case, where has the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), gone? She went precisely at the moment when she could have explained to the House whether the Department still exists, as claimed by the Leader of the House, or whether it is an empty shell, as is patently obvious to everyone else. Lord Hope of Craighead has suggested that a Blairite constitutional court could contravene the treaty of Union. Do the Government have a policy on that? Are they going to restore the final court of appeal for civil matters to Scotland, as is already the case for criminal matters? What is the Government's policy on those Scottish matters and where is the Under-Secretary of State?

Christopher Leslie: I seem to recall that, about half an hour ago, the Under-Secretary of State was answering Scottish questions. Indeed, she continues to work with the Secretary of State for Scotland on Scottish policy matters. She has just answered those questions and will continue to do so in the normal way. She is responsible and accountable in that respect.
	In terms of the supreme court, some of those questions will obviously be at the centre of the consultation paper that will be published on 14 July. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's comments in that respect.

Alex Salmond: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on a motion for the Adjournment.

House of Lords Reform

Clive Soley: When the Government will respond to the Second Report from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform.

Christopher Leslie: We aim to reply to the second report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform shortly.

Clive Soley: Following the very welcome changes to the constitution that the Government have made recently, I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that we can debate the Joint Committee's report, because there is a real opportunity for both Houses to move forward on constitutional change. While I am not looking for further debates on Putney heath à la 400 years ago, there are significant changes to be made and the House of Lords could start by electing their own Speaker, instead of having its Speaker appointed by the Government. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would not like the Government to appoint you in this House and we should not accept it in the second Chamber either.

Christopher Leslie: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Conservative party seems keen to defend the appointment of the speakership of the House of Lords by the Prime Minister, which is a rather curious policy to advocate and to put in its future manifesto. I have read the Joint Committee's second report. As I say, we will respond in due course. Some important issues are raised in that but the Joint Committee recognised, not least in respect of the votes in this House on 4 February, that there has not been a massive amount of clarity: hon. Members declined to back any option, whether fully appointed, fully elected or a mixture of the two.

David Cameron: Can the Minister explain why the Government have failed to deliver on an elected House of Lords, which was in their manifesto, but have managed to abolish the office of the Lord Chancellor, which was not in their manifesto? Do they just make it up as they go along?

Christopher Leslie: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating the return of the hereditary peerage to the second Chamber. He may not have noticed, but this Government have got rid of the bulk of hereditary peers from the second Chamber. That was a radical step forward and we will continue radically to reform the constitution in the manner set out in the reshuffle.

Chris Bryant: Now that the Government are very wisely taking the Law Lords out of the House of Lords, could they advance one further step and remove the bishops as well, even if the bishops have in recent days been trying to make themselves a little more representative of the general public?

Christopher Leslie: I cannot say that we have published specific plans in that respect as yet. We will respond to the second report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, but the creation of a supreme court and an independent judicial appointments commission gives us a number of great opportunities to look at some of these issues in the round.

Judicial Appointments

John Hayes: What the Lord Chancellor's functions are in respect of the appointment of judges.

Christopher Leslie: The responsibility of the Lord Chancellor in advising Her Majesty and the Prime Minister on senior judicial appointments, and in making other judicial appointments himself, will continue in exactly the same way as before, until a new independent judicial appointments commission is created by legislation.

John Hayes: Given that there seems to be little evidence—or little evidence that the Government have produced, at least—to suggest problems with the existing system, and given that there is no evidence whatsoever of consultation before the changes were announced, what were the terms of reference that guided the changes, and how long will the transition take in respect of the transitional post occupied by this reluctant post-holder? Is it not true that this is about not the separation of powers, but the concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister and a few of his acolytes? This is not so much serious constitutional reform as a soap opera: not "Neighbours" and not even "Friends", but "flatmates".

Christopher Leslie: That was a very well rehearsed question, but we believe that it is important to take the judiciary selection process out of the hands of politicians. We are going to consult widely on the details, and a document will be published on 14 July. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that he wishes to retain the current system—[Interruption.] He appears not to be saying either way, but if that is his wish he is perfectly free to write in to the consultation.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

The Leader of the House was asked—

Programming

Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Leader of the House if he will make a statement on progress with the arrangements for programming of Bills.

Peter Hain: The Government believe that the arrangements for the programming of Bills are broadly satisfactory. It is in the interests of both sides of the House to agree a sensible programme for consideration of Bills.

Nicholas Winterton: On behalf of the whole House, I ask the new Leader of the House—I wish him well in his new responsibilities—whether it is right that a programme motion that is decided by the Government without consultation or debate should take place immediately after the vote on Second Reading of a Bill. Although I believe it right that the Government should decide the out-date from Standing Committee, does he not agree that it would be better for the whole House, and for its integrity and reputation, if such matters were discussed under the independent Chairman of the Standing Committee by the Programming Sub-Committee of that Committee? That way, all matters could be discussed and the Opposition parties could have a real input into what they wish to debate in Committee.

Peter Hain: May I first acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's long and admirable record on these matters, especially in his role as Chairman of the Procedure Committee? I should like to discuss those matters with him, and I recognise the points that he makes. Programming is obviously vital—no one in the House seriously challenges that view. [Interruption.] Apparently, the shadow Leader of the House does, but then he has not been willing to engage the Opposition co-operatively in discussions on establishing programmes that are acceptable to all sides. However, I shall look into the issue that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) raises.

John Cryer: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post, but does he recognise that there have been problems with, and shortcomings in, the programming of Bills? For instance, certain key clauses in the Licensing Bill, which had its Third Reading in the House of Commons only a few days ago, were not debated and therefore not voted on. We must deal with such shortcomings; otherwise, they will become increasingly glaring.

Peter Hain: Obviously, as the process develops and becomes more refined by agreement of the House, those issues will have to be examined.

Paul Tyler: We welcome the fact that the Leader of the House is prepared to think afresh about these issues, and I encourage him to be radical in examining ways in which the business of the House can be managed more intelligently. Will he give the House a cast-iron guarantee that, if he produces radical proposals, he will not on this occasion be mugged, gagged and forced to recant by the heavies from No. 10 and No. 11 Downing street? If the Liberal Democrat proposals for improving the income tax regime are still to the Leader of the House's taste, will he also examine our proposals for improving the business of the House?

Peter Hain: Being mugged by the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be a taxing experience. As to his question, it is for the Modernisation Committee to examine, but I will obviously want to take part in that discussion.

Pre-legislative Scrutiny

Graham Allen: What discussions he has had with Government Departments and others to ensure that all Bills in the next Session will be available for pre-legislative scrutiny.

Peter Hain: The Government are committed to increasing the number of Bills that are published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny, and we are working hard to achieve that. Five Bills have been published in draft this Session so far, and more will follow.

Graham Allen: Following the demise of my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), some of the steam has gone out of the desire for pre-legislative scrutiny. Will the Leader of the House ensure that Chairs of Select Committees and Departments bring forward Bills for pre-legislative discussion? In particular, will he examine the draft constitution of the European Union and ensure that it is put before the House for pre-legislative scrutiny in draft form—not after it has been agreed at the IGC, when we will be faced with a simple yes or no? The people of Britain and hon. Members deserve to be involved in discussing and revising the draft EU constitution, and not be presented with a fait accompli.

Peter Hain: On the general principle, five draft Bills have already been published this Session, and four more are to follow, which makes nine in comparison with six during the last Session. On my hon. Friend's substantive point, I acknowledge his creative and innovative ideas and I will want to examine them. Let us pause for moment and look at the process ahead of us. The IGC is about to start, following the conclusion of the European Convention. It will probably start in the autumn and could take a year. Meanwhile, we have an agreement with the European Scrutiny Committee and we have deposited for scrutiny the Praesidium draft texts and produced explanatory memorandums. Members of Parliament have had many opportunities to debate the proposed constitution and there will be future opportunities: indeed, I shall make a further announcement shortly.

Eric Forth: The junior Minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed a few minutes ago that setting up an appointments commission would require legislation. Can the tax-raising Leader of the House please confirm that any appointments commission would be fully and statutorily independent of the Home Secretary; that the Home Secretary would have no direct or indirect role in the appointment of judges under such legislation; and that the legislation can be guaranteed pre-legislative scrutiny of the sort that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) mentioned? Would any Bill to set up a supreme court also have full pre-legislative scrutiny? I hope that the part-time Leader of the House can confirm those matters.

Peter Hain: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is singling out the Home Secretary, which, frankly, seems a bit unfair. However, the objective is to establish an independent procedure, which is what it says. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as made clear by the Lord Chancellor, a consultation paper on all these matters will be published on 14 July. At that point, the right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members will have the opportunity to consider how to proceed. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome both the consultation and the legislation to follow.

Tom Clarke: While I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post, may I ask for his assurance that the draft Disability Bill will enjoy the widest possible consultation? Will that consultation include the need for a single equality Act—necessary if we are to pursue the policy of amalgamating the various commissions, including the Disability Rights Commission?

Peter Hain: I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's long interest in and expertise on disability matters. We hope to publish the Bill by the end of the year and it will obviously be a candidate for pre-legislative scrutiny, subject to further consideration.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Accountability

Norman Baker: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps he is taking to improve the mechanisms for accountability of the Commission to the House.

Archy Kirkwood: The Commission makes considerable efforts to be open and accountable. I answer both written and oral questions, and the Commission's annual report contains full information about the work, performance and plans of the House's administration. The House may like to know that the latest edition, in a revised and improved format, will be published in a fortnight's time. It is not quite Harry Potter, but it will repay careful study.
	In recent months, the Commission has also introduced pages on the parliamentary website describing its role and work, and it now also publishes its minutes on the internet. The Commission is financially accountable through the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Finally, the Commission is supported and advised by six Committees of right hon. and hon. Members, who represent the interests of Members generally and act as a channel for their views.

Norman Baker: I am grateful for that long answer from my hon. Friend, who has a good record on freedom of information, so I do not doubt his commitment to the accountability of the Commission. However, does he accept that the way in which the House administration is organised, with its myriad Committees—Broadcasting, Catering, Accommodation and Works, and so on—obscures accountability? Would not it be more sensible if the House managed itself in a way that reduced the number of Committees?

Archy Kirkwood: We are always interested in Members' views on how we might reform the system that we use to administer the House. The consultation involved in the six existing Committees that sit under the Commission is a sophisticated and sensitive method of consultation that hon. Members have used to great effect in the past. I would be reluctant to change that unless there was a real reason for doing so.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

The Leader of the House was asked—

IT Equipment

David Taylor: To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to widen the standard range of IT equipment made available to hon. Members and their staff in constituency offices.

Phil Woolas: Mr Speaker's Advisory Panel on the Members' Allowances keeps the level of provision under review. As hon. Members will know, the Information Committee provides advice on the equipment available. If my hon. Friend has suggestions, the best way forward might be to submit them to the Information Committee or the Advisory Panel.

David Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. In my six years as a Member of Parliament, the volume, range and complexity of data that floods through the average constituency office has increased to such a degree that we need improved facilities. In particular, we would benefit from the wider availability of broadband, as well as the increasing use of video facilities and equipment. Both are essential for modern parliamentarians.

Phil Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. The House may be interested to know that the Information Committee is at present reviewing the equipment provided to take on board some of the points that he has made. All hon. Members will recognise that the complexity of the information technology that is available can improve the service that we give to our constituents. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is committed to doing exactly that.

Windsor Castle

David Blunkett: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the serious breach of security at Windsor castle last Saturday evening, 21 June. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has already apologised personally to the royal family and, on behalf of the Government and the House, I too offer my deep regret to Her Majesty and the royal family for the events of Saturday evening.
	Yesterday afternoon, I received a six-page report from the commissioner. It is a preliminary report, which I have discussed with the commissioner this morning. A further detailed review has already been set in train. However, it may help the House if I summarise the chronology of events in the report.
	At 8 pm, Aaron Barschak appeared at the main entrance of Windsor castle. He was refused entry by the police and, following an impromptu public comic turn, was asked to move on.
	At about 10 pm, Mr. Barschak entered the castle grounds at Chapter mews. He climbed a steep bank, scaled a tree and leaped across on to the castle wall. From here, he climbed to the north terrace.
	As he advanced along the north terrace, he was challenged by a contractor. By this time he had changed into fancy dress.

David Cameron: It was the Lord Chancellor.

David Blunkett: I am not aware that he was wearing a wig at the time.

Douglas Hogg: And lady's tights.

David Blunkett: Actually, this matter is quite serious.
	Mr. Barschak presented as being slightly drunk and said that he was a party guest who had lost his way. The contractor escorted him to one of the side entrances to the castle, where a police officer was on duty. The police officer, who had to remain at his post, asked the contractor to take Mr. Barschak to the main entrance to the party. There was no further challenge from either the police or other staff controlling access to the party. Mr. Barschak was able to get unacceptably close to Prince William.

Keith Simpson: He kissed him.

David Blunkett: We do not have confirmation of that.
	Having appeared at the prince's side, Mr. Barschak then made his way to the bar, where a member of the castle staff challenged him. He was handed over to the police and subsequently arrested. Following interview and investigation by the police, which is still continuing, Mr. Barschak was released on bail.
	I am sure that the House will appreciate that I have to be very careful, in commenting on the incident, to ensure that I do not prejudice any possible police action against Mr. Barschak. Nevertheless, his actions have exposed an appalling failure in the security at Windsor castle, which simply should not have happened. I know that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis agrees with this view.
	I am determined that lessons should be learned from this incident. A detailed police inquiry is being conducted by a senior officer, Commander Frank Armstrong of the City of London police. The report of that investigation will determine conclusively what went wrong on the night, and whether disciplinary action needs to be taken. That report will be available within the next four weeks. It is my intention, in consultation with Sir John Stevens, to publish the report.
	However, neither the police nor I are awaiting that report before considering what further security measures need to be taken. This is the subject of the most urgent work with the royal household by the Metropolitan police and my officials.
	My particular concern is that this very serious breach of security occurred despite there being extensive security and surveillance measures already in place at Windsor castle. Further work has been carried out over the past few months, and more is planned for the autumn. Security at all royal residences remains under constant review, but at this stage we have no reason to believe there were any technical failures at Windsor on Saturday night.
	Assistant Commissioner David Veness of the Metropolitan police has made it clear that the events of Saturday night are wholly unacceptable, and I share that view. That is why, within the confines of the inquiry and possible further police action, I have sought today to give the House a picture of those events.
	I want to assure the House that we will work with the police and the royal household to ensure that lessons can be learned from this event that can only improve the security of the royal family for the future. I know that the whole House will share that objective.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his statement and for giving me early sight of it, although that conventional courtesy was perhaps less important than usual as we have all read it in the press.
	I take this opportunity to repeat in the House what I have already said outside: we are not aiming to decapitate the Home Secretary or anyone else. Our purpose in considering the statement and the events to which it refers should be to learn the lessons and improve the systems of protection rather than to satisfy any political or administrative bloodlust.
	It is clear that the system failed. If there was human failure, as the Home Secretary seems to imply, that is not a sufficient explanation, because human beings do fail; the point of systems is to make up for their failings, to ensure that the outcome is good even when things go wrong on the way.
	The House, and, I hope, the Government, will not want to focus solely on the immediate lessons and the immediate questions. There are also wider lessons. This episode and the systemic failure that it represents is an important metaphor for wider systemic failure. Faced with the current terrorist threat, Whitehall is doing many of the right things, but it is doing them far too lethargically. I have recently seen a letter from the emergency planning officer of a county council. It is one of a number of similar communications that I have received from emergency planners around the country over the past 18 months.
	In the letter, that senior official tells us:
	"In respect of measures to assist in dealing with . . . the chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear threat . . . the time this is taking to implement across the country is a cause for concern".
	Is not the real lesson, the biggest lesson of this latest lamentable episode, that, as I have been saying for more than a year, the required sense of urgency is missing? Is not this latest episode a wake-up call?
	It is all very well—indeed, it is very well—for the Home Secretary to ask for a report from the commissioner after the episode, but can he tell us whether he asked for reports on the progressive improvement of royal security in each of the last 18 months? I suspect that the Home Secretary and his colleagues would regard that question as naive. I suspect they think that I do not understand how busy he is; but the point is that I do understand how busy he is.
	The Home Secretary is too busy—too busy to wake up each morning and to go to bed each evening worrying exclusively about the systems of civil protection in this country. Given the present level of threat, constantly emphasised by the right hon. Gentleman and by the Prime Minister, and recently re-emphasised by the head of MI5, and given the current deficiencies in our systems of civil protection, all too glaringly illustrated by the recent episode, we need a heavyweight political figure who can spend morning, noon and night worrying about those matters, and harassing the various agencies.
	Before the Home Secretary retorts that a new Department will not help, let me restate, as I have on numerous occasions over the past 18 months, that I do not believe that a new Department is required. What is required is, rather, a centre of energy in the form of a senior Minister, spending his or her whole time energising those responsible for civil protection in Britain.
	Such a Minister could be located within the Cabinet Office or within the Home Office itself, a Department which, I remind the Home Secretary—[Interruption.]—and the Chief Whip, who is muttering from a sedentary position—[Hon. Members: "As usual".] For three long months, under their aegis, the Department did not even have a Minister with part-time responsibility for those matters.
	Will the Home Secretary, for our safety and for his peace of mind, take the opportunity of this episode to consider afresh what is genuinely intended as a constructive way forward?

David Blunkett: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that there is no bloodlust. We all share the view that, if lessons are to be learned, we should move quickly to put things right. We also share his view that systemic failure occurred on this occasion.
	I have already made it clear that the technology that was put in place did not fail, so there was clearly a failure in the systems for checking; there was human error and a failure to respond to particular indications of intrusion and to ensure that after the initial checks had been made, continuing identity checks were made in the castle itself. All those lessons will be learned.
	Let me deal with the substantive issue—what the right hon. Gentleman described as a metaphor. Were the emergency planning officers right to believe that, if it has taken time to deal with the very substantive chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threat and if undue time has been taken to put in place the tens of millions of pounds that we are now spending to counteract that threat, there is a read-over to this event and therefore that urgency of action was the cause of the failure as well as not having a security tsar in the Cabinet, separate from the Minister responsible for counter-terrorism and policing, including MI5, SO13 and SO14 and the wider special branch? That is the issue that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this afternoon.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks whether we have we taken steps over 18 months to secure the royal family. Yes, we have. At every royal palace, major work has been and continues to be undertaken, including at Windsor castle. When the report comes out, the steps taken, the technology available and the surveillance already in place will be spelt out, along with the detailed investigation of the failures. [Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House rightly, almost perceptively, says from a sedentary position that it did not work. Well, self-evidently, it did not work; otherwise, I would not be reporting to the House.
	Self-evidently, no matter how busy I have been, I was not there on Saturday night to oversee the events, even though, as Prince Andrew said to me last night, I would have been very welcome. I was attending an event that the shadow Home Secretary also attended. However, if I had been very welcome—let us get this clear—I would not have been operationally responsible for what took place at Windsor, not just because it would not have been correct for me to do so, but because Opposition Members have been berating me for the past two years for taking any step to have any operational responsibility for police activity. They can only have it one way: either I am operationally responsible, or a security tsar would be; or the police are operationally responsible, so long as we as a Government have put in place the resources, the available support and the mechanisms to ensure that they do their job properly.
	Let me deal with the final issue. If there had been a security tsar in the Cabinet and I had been sitting next to him while he made this statement, would it have changed the situation? Would it have avoided the event? Would we be more secure? Would it have helped or hindered to have taken out of the hands of the Home Secretary responsibility for the general issue, but not the responsibility to hold to account the operational special branch and policing mechanisms, including SO14, which is responsible for royal security? Would it have made a difference if a separate person was answering those questions, or badgering me or the police about what they are doing separately from the duty that I would have to carry out in being in charge and accountable for MI5 and special branch? The answer is patently no. If someone else were trying to do my job for me separately, and answering for me separately while I sat next to him, the accountable lines of responsibility would be muddled. The police, including the commissioner, would not be clear to whom they were accountable and the discussions this morning would inevitably have been with both of us and the report would have to come to both of us.
	In the end, these are the questions that have to be answered: did we do our bit of the job correctly? Have other people done their jobs correctly? Whom do we hold to account for the failures? How do we learn the lessons? It does not matter what silly party politics are made of this; those are the questions. We will have the answers within a month and, if someone else energising himself by rushing around triple checking the arrangements put in place and ensuring that personal and systemic failures do not occur would make any difference, I would recommend to the Prime Minister that it be done, but we have either overall charge of the system, or operational responsibility. We cannot have both.

Simon Hughes: Happily, the uninvited guest at the castle on Saturday night was clearly social and self-promotional rather than antisocial and considerably worse, for which we are grateful. I am not going to ask the Home Secretary about civil defence, as it seems to me that that is a matter for another day. I have a couple of straightforward questions.
	Can the Home Secretary confirm that the opportunity will be taken of the event on Saturday night to review the security of all the key institutions of state: the homes and offices of the key members of the royal family, the Parliaments and Governments of the United Kingdom, and the courts of the United Kingdom, all of which need to be secure and safe? Can he confirm that the one crucial thing that appears to have failed on Saturday night, and that clearly failed 20 years ago, is that the perimeter boundaries were not adequately policed, either in person or technologically? Surely that is easy to do technologically, which is the priority in all the key institutions to which I have referred. Lastly, to get the lines of accountability right—he is right to say that he does not have, as he should not have, direct accountability—when the royal family are outside London, who are in charge; is it the diplomatic and royal protection force of the Metropolitan police or the local territorial police? In cases such as this, which of those two takes responsibility or do they share it?

David Blunkett: I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has posed his questions. On the latter point, the local force has responsibility outside the perimeter. That is very clear, and that was the case with Thames Valley police outside the perimeter of Windsor castle. The Metropolitan police royal protection branch has responsibility inside the grounds, in conjunction with the royal family and their staff. It is important to bear in mind that we are talking about a family and decisions taken by them in relation to the level of surveillance and the avoidance of intrusion, particularly when there are invited guests and it is a family event. People have spoken in the past 48 hours as if the royal family should have no say in this and should have expected a degree of intrusion, which would have been unacceptable to them.
	On the two other questions raised by the hon. Gentleman, it is absolutely imperative that we have the proper level of security elsewhere, and Members are aware that we have been doing that both at No. 10 Downing street and around the Palace of Westminster over recent months. It is critical that we learn the lessons. I ought to make it clear to the House that there was and is electronic surveillance of the highest order. There is a suggestion, as there was a moment or two ago, that some of us are so busy that we do not have a clue about what is going on or about the necessary use of technology or surveillance. We are talking about whether that technology was used effectively, whether the indications from it were picked up, and whether they were acted on. That is why this important detailed review by Commander Armstrong will have to deliver to us not just the answers to the immediate questions but the way forward in making sure that the failures do not happen again.

Gordon Prentice: We are all relieved that nothing terrible happened at Windsor. What is the cost, however, of policing these royal events? We are not talking about any old royal event, but a fancy dress party. If football clubs in north-east Lancashire or agricultural shows in my constituency are charged for the cost of policing such events, is it not right that the royal family or invited guests to royal fancy dress dos reimburse the police for the extra cost of this additional security?

David Blunkett: Arrangements are in place to deal with what falls as a private cost and what falls to the public purse in terms of security for those in the public eye. What I say to my hon. Friend is that we must have a sense of proportion. It is nice for a young man to have a 21st birthday party and to be able to do so in safety.

Andrew MacKay: While this was clearly a serious incident with potentially disastrous consequences, I put it to the Home Secretary that my constituents who live near Windsor, who have a great affection for the royal family, have always enjoyed a close informality, as was seen last week with the Garter parade, which has ensured a close relationship between the local population and the royal family. While probably introducing new security measures, I urge him not to do so in a way that means that the royal family and the public do not have close contact. If that happens, as with Members of Parliament at Westminster, the terrorists win.

David Blunkett: It is precisely because of the wish of the royal family to maintain that informality, for the reasons that have just been enunciated, that the lighter-touch approach was agreed. Because in this country we have an agreement with the individual rather than one imposed by the security forces, as happens elsewhere, including across the Atlantic, there is a choice for those of us who have security, including the royal family, in relation to the level and intensity of that security. Many choose to ensure that they can continue living something of a life. That is a very important point. The events of Saturday night mean, inevitably, as there will rightly be a public demand for it, a tightening, but that must be with the agreement of the royal family, and it is at a cost to all of us in terms of the way that we live our lives.

Kate Hoey: In looking at measures to ensure that the security lapses on Saturday night do not happen again, will the Home Secretary assure the House and my constituents—who today are facing up to the fact that there is not a single ward officer in Lambeth, as they have all been sent up to guard President Putin—that in relation to any extra resources that go into security and terrorism, London boroughs that have many officers taken away on a day-to-day basis are given extra officers? There must be a balance to that, because if it is to go on for some time, it will affect the well-being of ordinary constituents who do not want their privacy invaded by burglaries.

David Blunkett: As we have said on numerous occasions to my hon. Friend and others, that is precisely the reason why we have put £62 million extra into the Metropolitan police this year, that several hundred community support officers have been employed to ensure that displacement does not take place, and that we have ensured that the 200 officers who have been displaced, as I said at the last Home Office questions, do not disproportionately affect other boroughs. These are big issues, and all of us need to ensure that the displacement factor does not affect general policing.

Andrew Rosindell: Will the Home Secretary acknowledge the potential catastrophic consequences of what could have taken place last Saturday had the intruder been a suicide bomber rather than a comedian? Will he therefore ensure that a thorough and urgent review of security takes place in all royal palaces, not just Windsor castle, and including the Palace of Westminster?

David Blunkett: Of course, the review of royal palaces has already taken place. The measures that I was mentioning a moment ago have already been put in place. The review by Commander Armstrong will deal with the failure to be able to use the measures already available and any lessons learned in terms of additional measures that might be required, including here. As was mentioned earlier, as hon. Members and bearing in mind the operation of the House, we must balance security for ourselves against the access that the public rightly demand and the availability and visibility of those whom they hold to account.

Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will be fully aware that everyone in the country wishes him well in his duties, particularly with regard to security. I am delighted that he is so up to date with electronic information and the methods used in security today. He is certainly aware, however, that the report could show that there was no human error or failing, and that the system was just not knitted together well enough. That could happen on any occasion. Security is not just about putting extra bodies in place: it is about utilisation and the experience and training that those officers receive. When he reads the report, will he please take note of the fact that in this country we have a long tradition of civil liberties, and that more security could easily mean more repression? Will he ensure that we continue to enjoy our civil liberties and the quality of life that we have had for centuries?

David Blunkett: That balance is absolutely crucial. I want to make it clear that I have already acknowledged, as the Commissioner has acknowledged, that there was substantial failure and that it was not a simple matter of people not lining up the individual reaction with the technology. Those failures will be revealed. I have indicated that we will publish the report and do something about it, and then people will be aware of whether other changes will be needed consequent on that report.

Andrew Robathan: In a previous life I spent a great deal of time guarding Windsor castle, so I know its perimeter quite well. It is a huge tourist attraction, as well as a major building with a large perimeter, that is set in a beautiful home park that is also open to the public. The Home Secretary has already spoken about balance. Will he reaffirm the fact that we do not want to see our royal family behind rolls of razor wire? Given the serious lapse of security, will he confirm that the best weapon is the vigilance of the general public? That is partly a question of educating the general public that some clown in a dress is not just a gatecrasher and could, in fact, be a serious threat to the royal family and, indeed, our whole democracy.

David Blunkett: I think we have already acknowledged that. In the final analysis of Saturday night, apart from the failures that we have indicated existed, the difficulty was that it was a fancy-dress party. That is a lesson if ever there was one.

David Taylor: The last decade has seen a continued expansion of the role and responsibilities of private security firms. Will the inquiry that the Home Secretary announced examine in particular the way in which they carried out their duties, which are often considered to be down to a price, not up to a standard? Will he be able to tell the nation that no obsession with out-sourcing has imperilled the security of the royal family?

David Blunkett: I can absolutely give an assurance on that because there was not a failure by private security companies. Contractors dealing with power and other provisions were involved, which are entirely different from companies responsible for security.

Keith Simpson: The Home Secretary outlined a serious security breach but, at the same time, the situation was almost like comic opera or something from the Ali G show. He outlined the operational responsibilities of the Metropolitan police, but will he tell the House his exact responsibility as Home Secretary? He gave the impression that it was rather an administrative responsibility relating to the allocation of resources.

David Blunkett: I did not suggest that there was an administrative failure. There was a clear failure on the ground of people doing the job expected, as I am sure the review will conclude. However, it will do so by taking account of highly complicated issues such as the role of individuals, the use of technology and communications that took place on the night. There will be an important learning curve.
	The Home Secretary's role is to ensure that resources are available and that the right questions are asked prior to the installation of further security and surveillance measures at the royal palaces. Any failure at a political level will be reported in the review and I shall happily take the rap for anything for which I can duly be expected to carry responsibility, bearing in mind the case that previous Home Secretaries were directly responsible for the Metropolitan police, which has not been the case for the past six years.

Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand my concern about suggestions in the press that heads must roll over the incident? Does he agree that officers should be required to resign only if it can be said sensibly that they were personally guilty of real culpability or default, and that simply seeking a scalp would be wholly inappropriate and unjust?

David Blunkett: I made it clear that there should be no scapegoats and I said to Sir John Stevens this morning that it was very important that no one—especially at a lowly level—should lose their job because of wider failures to do and manage the job better higher up the hierarchy.

Gregory Barker: In light of this seriously embarrassing failure, has the Home Secretary reviewed the security arrangements for President Putin's visit to this country this week? Furthermore, what impact does he expect the breach of security at Windsor castle to have on the proposed visit by President Bush later in the year? Does he expect the Americans to revisit their plans for the President to stay at the castle in the light of the Home Secretary's inability to provide adequate security?

David Blunkett: I have discussed the Putin visit this week with David Veness—some of us obviously have a personal interest in the security this afternoon because we will be at the event. Despite the pressures on me, I am entirely on board with this. I promise that if there is a fancy-dress ball when President Bush is at Windsor, we shall take every step to avoid anyone kissing him.

Henry Bellingham: The Home Secretary has alluded to this point, but surely one of the extra challenges facing the police and royal protection officers on the night was the large number of extra contractors, caterers, waiters and waitresses who were employed in the place of existing household staff. Does he agree that one of the lessons to be learned is that, whenever possible, royal household staff rather than outside contractors should be used to carry out such functions?

David Blunkett: The answer is yes, but it is entirely a matter for the royal household. I said earlier that unlike other countries we do not impose activities on individuals—including members of the royal family—that they are not prepared to accept even in the interests of security. We have to negotiate such matters on all occasions. The same is true when people are used for other contracted arrangements for such parties.

Genetics

John Reid: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the White Paper on genetics and health care that we are publishing today. The paper, "Our Inheritance, Our Future—Realising the potential of genetics in the NHS", is available from the Vote Office.
	Today's White Paper could not be published at a more appropriate time. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the publication by Francis Crick and James Watson of the structure of DNA. I begin by paying tribute to their work. DNA is the molecule of life from which our genes are made. The discovery of its double-helix structure set the stage for 50 years of world-changing genetic advances. It has allowed scientists to decode the human genome and to identify and sequence all the 30,000 or so genes that each of us carry in every cell of our body. This gigantic task was completed earlier this year. The UK has played a leading role in this ambitious international project, with a third of the genome being mapped at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge.
	Increasing understanding of genetics will bring more accurate diagnosis; more personalised prediction of risk; new gene-based drugs and therapies; and better targeted prevention and treatment. In time we should be able to assess the risk that an individual has of developing the country's biggest killers—cancer and coronary heart disease—as well as diseases such as diabetes that limit people's lives. We will also learn more about how variations in our genes affect the way we respond to medicines. Further down the line, genetics will lead to the development of new therapies aimed not only at treating disease in novel ways but at preventing it.
	Thus, genetics has the potential to bring immense benefits for patients. Above all, genetics promises a more personalised approach to health care with interventions tailored to each person's own genetic profile. This science, therefore, encourages us to develop the personalised NHS suitable for the 21st century that the Government are committed to creating. Our vision is for the NHS to lead the world in taking maximum advantage of the safe, effective and ethical application of the new genetic knowledge and technologies for all patients as soon as they become available. The vision calls for an integrated strategy that will support the generation of new knowledge and technologies, further develop centres of excellence in the NHS and facilitate the roll-out of genetics into all NHS services; and all within the context of a rigorous regulatory framework and greater public understanding and engagement. The White Paper sets out how that will be achieved.
	I believe that no other health care system in the world is better placed to harness the potential of genetic advances than the national health service. The values on which the NHS is based—providing care for all free at the point of use on the basis of need, not the ability to pay—are uniquely suited to capturing the benefits of the genetics revolution. They provide a bulwark against the inequalities of private insurance-based health systems in which the prospect of a genetic super-class of the well and insurable and a genetic underclass of the unwell and uninsurable, unable to pay the premiums for medical care, is for many a very real threat.
	Our NHS means that citizens in the UK can choose to take genetic tests free from the fear that should they test positive, they will face an enormous bill for treatment or insurance, or become priced out of care or cover altogether. Already in the United States of America, where 40 million people have no medical cover, developments in genetics have stirred precisely those concerns. As our understanding of genetics increases, the case for private health insurance as an alternative to the NHS weakens. Thus scientific advance increasingly underpins the moral values that have long lain at the heart of our national health service.
	I am today announcing that over the next three years the Government will invest an additional £50 million in England in developing genetics knowledge, skills and provision within the NHS. The White Paper that we are publishing today sets out detailed plans of how that money will be spent. The first step is to boost the capacity of NHS genetics centres. We will spend £18 million on a major programme to upgrade genetics laboratories and will expand the specialist genetics work force with initiatives and investment to increase the number of laboratory scientists and genetics counsellors.
	For patients to gain the maximum benefit from genetics, genetics knowledge and technologies will need to permeate the whole of the NHS. So we will spur the take-up of genetics by other specialties by spending more than £7 million to support new genetics initiatives in primary care and mainstream NHS services, such as cancer and coronary heart disease. We will set up a new genetics education and training centre that will work with the professional bodies to ensure that all NHS health care staff receive appropriate education and training in genetics.
	The White Paper also sets out our intention to fund further research to help convert genetic discoveries into improved patient care. We will invest £4 million in pharmacogenetic research on existing medicines and set up a new chair and university department in pharmacogenetics.
	The most common inheritable single-gene disorder in this country is cystic fibrosis. There are 7,500 children and young adults with this distressing condition in the UK. There is no cure and sufferers rarely survive beyond their 20s. Thus we will provide a further £2.5 million over the next five years to help find a gene therapy cure for cystic fibrosis. We will make available a further £3 million to support gene therapy research on other single-gene disorders and an additional £4 million on gene therapy production facilities for NHS and other public sector researchers. But realising the maximum health benefits of genetics will require more than just support and investment in NHS services and research. It can only be achieved if breakthroughs by the scientific community are matched by public support and understanding in the wider community.
	Against a background of great promise, we recognise that genetic advances bring very real ethical and social concerns. We are committed to providing positive safeguards to address those concerns. We have in place an integrated and robust system of regulation. We have already taken action by introducing a moratorium on the use of genetic test results by insurance companies and we have passed legislation to ban human reproductive cloning—one of the few countries in the world to have done so and the first to introduce specific legislation to that end.
	Above all, the Government are committed to ensuring openness and transparency in genetic policy making. In 1999 we set up the Human Genetics Commission, which last year produced a major report on the use of personal genetic information. It identified the growing danger of DNA theft whereby sensitive information about a person could be gained by stealing their DNA from, for example, discarded hair, which is then tested without their knowledge or consent. The commission recommended that that should be illegal. I am able to announce that the Government have accepted that recommendation. We will introduce legislation to make it an offence to test a person's DNA without their consent. The new offence will apply in all circumstances except as part of a person's medical treatment where consent is impossible to obtain or the lawful use by the police and courts.
	A core ethical principle in the HGC's report is that no one should be unfairly discriminated against on the basis of their genetic characteristics. The Government wholeheartedly endorse that principle. We accept the HGC's recommendation to review the evidence and to consider the appropriate means of addressing concerns in this area. Thus by accepting the two key recommendations of the Human Genetics Commission, I hope that I have demonstrated the Government's willingness to engage in a genuine dialogue on genetics issues. We need not fear genetic advances if we debate the issues openly and put in place the proper public protections today.
	We are standing on the threshold of a revolution in health care. By working together, by building on our strengths, by making the necessary investment and careful preparation now, I believe that genetics can deliver real and lasting benefits in health and health care for all of us and everyone in this country. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Liam Fox: I welcome the Secretary of State to his position and wholeheartedly wish him the health to enjoy his job, which I think all hon. Members would agree is one of the most difficult in the Government. I also thank him for making the statement available in record early time. That is most welcome.
	Conservative Members welcome the White Paper and its contents and look forward to the proposals appearing in legislation. I welcome the expansion of genetic services having done some of my medical training at the Du Pont genetic centre in Wilmington, Delaware and look forward to the time when our facilities are up to that standard. It is also worth pointing out that genomic solutions are not necessarily expensive. In fact, if properly applied they may lead us to make better use of the resources that we have.
	We welcome the proposals to deal with DNA theft and the need to maintain public confidence. We support the Government's view of the need to avoid discrimination against people on the basis of genetic characteristics and will examine detailed proposals for legislation constructively. We will, of course, support any increased research into cystic fibrosis.
	However, in welcoming the White Paper as a whole, there are a number of caveats. We must not over-hype what genetics can do, especially in the short and medium terms. The technologies are emerging and are at an early stage. The full potential is not yet known. The mapping of the human genome does not mean that we know the function of all genes. The Secretary of State mentioned the ability to prevent disease. That will always be relative. He will be well aware of the equation of phenotype equals genotype plus environment. Environmental factors will always be an important aspect in illness, which will not simply be based on genetics.
	Very few single genes can, or will ever, be identified that will predict with certainty that an individual will inevitably develop a specific condition. The majority, of single-gene defects, if not all, had been identified clinically—for example, haemophilia or sickle cell anaemia—long before gene mapping. Information obtained for research purposes must not be available for forensic, legal or any other purpose not related to that research, or we will find it difficult to maintain a research base in this country.
	The Secretary of State rightly said that the genetic revolution would be of maximum benefit when free care for all was provided at the point of need, irrespective of income. However, it is wrong to portray the national health service and an American-style insurance system as alternatives. I am sure that Germany and Switzerland, with their social insurance systems, will be just as able as the United Kingdom—if not better able—to take advantage of the genetic revolution. To portray those options as alternatives is intellectually flawed, politically dishonest and deeply insulting to European countries with well-developed health systems.
	There is a problem with the Secretary of State's analysis of insurance. He may be right that the case for private insurance would diminish, but some factors will increase in importance. For some individuals, the exclusion of certain risks may make them more attractive to insurers. The Government have imposed a moratorium, but offshore and online services are almost impossible to regulate, so they need to give more thought to that.
	I should like the Secretary of State to deal with four specific questions. First, what is the Government's view about the extent to which intellectual property protection for gene-based inventions will play a role in stimulating the development of new health care products? Secondly, what are the Government's plans to extend counselling services, education and training as their programme develops and in what time scale? Thirdly, in pharmacogenetics, where doctors may be able to select individuals for particular drug use or avoidance, what changes do the Government think may be required in the legislation relating to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence? Finally, the Secretary of State said that the new offence of theft of DNA will apply in all circumstances, except as part of someone's medical treatment when consent is impossible to obtain. What legal advice has he received in relation to people held under the Mental Health Acts who are not able to give consent in the normal way?

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his double whammy of congratulations on the early dispatch of the statement and my arrival at the Dispatch Box in my new capacity. In that context, I will attempt to make statements available early as far as possible in circumstances which, as he will accept, are sometimes pressurised, so that the Opposition have due time to consider the issues. I do not think that they should be matters of party political debate, although some of the consequences, which the hon. Gentleman raised, lead us into the arena of legitimate choices about the nature of our health system. May I also say that I was encouraged to present the statement early following your strictures on a previous occasion, Mr. Speaker, when I was in a different position?
	I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who brings to these matters a great deal of experience from his personal background and studies, that we must not over-hype the prospects and impact of the revolution in health care created by genetics. We should recognise the advances that can be achieved in diagnosis, treatment and, in some cases, potential cures. However, we must strike a balance between the euphoria that comes with new inventions and the magic wand fantasy that is sometimes created by commentators on the one hand, and the deep suspicion, lapsing into prejudice, of anything that involves scientific advance on the other. The hon. Gentleman is right about that.
	As for intellectual property rights and patents in general, we all understand that they do not entail the ownership of a particular gene or gene sequence. They protect research into a particular application of a gene or gene sequence, and those intellectual property rights and, indeed, patents are necessary to encourage people to invest in a number of different areas. We recognise that but, of course, we must make sure that such rights do not inhibit the NHS from offering the applications that they want to offer the people of this country. For instance, we have been asked about testing people for a disposition to breast or ovarian cancer, and the implications for companies that may be carrying out research in that field. We will not be blackmailed in any way or pushed into stopping women who may be predisposed to certain forms of breast or ovarian cancer from taking the necessary tests, because we believe that we have a moral, legal and political responsibility to offer that application.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of counsellors. We need not just the physical investment of money and premises and the bringing together of technical knowledge but people, whether geneticists, genetic counsellors or others. We have made provision in the White Paper issued today for sufficient money to increase the number of genetic counsellors, and we intend that that should be a building block for the future. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.
	On the point that the hon. Gentleman made about mental health patients, I should be obliged, given the short time for which I have been in post, if he allowed me to write to him about our legal advice on mental health patients. Obviously, there are some circumstances under which it is not possible to obtain permission—for example, from victims of a road accident or people who are comatose or unconscious—but for the benefit of the victim of the accident or the patient, it may be necessary for identification or the purposes of administration of medical assistance, to take a sample for DNA testing without consent. However, on the specific issue of mental health patients, I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman.
	Finally, on the larger point made by the hon. Gentleman, there is a debate to be had on the implications for the nature of health care provision in this country of the potential predictability of an individual's health. I have already expressed my own view in the statement. It is undoubtedly true that there will be some individuals, as the hon. Gentleman said, who, because of genetic discoveries, treatment and potential cures, will be much better off under private health insurance than they otherwise would. That is surely the point—there will be some individuals who, because of the predictability of their future good health, will be much better placed in a sort of super-class, and there will be many individuals who, because they are predicted to suffer from bad health, will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to get private insurance or health cover. My own view is that recognition of that, together with changing circumstances, reinforces rather than detracts from the moral case for the national health service by underpinning it with scientific advance. I have no doubt at all about that. Time will tell whether our system will stand those tests better than the social insurance or private insurance systems elsewhere. However, I personally have no doubt not only that the NHS is as relevant as ever, but that with every passing year of medical discovery it is becoming more relevant to the people of this country.

Evan Harris: May I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his post, as well as thanking him for early sight of the statement and the accompanying White Paper? I should also like to congratulate the Government on the establishment of the Human Genetics Commission, which has already done valuable work in promoting public debate and consultation. It is also timely to take the opportunity to congratulate those involved in the human genome project, particularly from this country, and recognise the work of those involved in the discovery of DNA. I extend the Secretary of State's recognition of Crick and Watson to include the contribution of Rosalind Franklin, because far too often, history, including science history, is written by men.
	The Secretary of State said that the new genetics will lead to the prospect of four new things. First, with reference to more accurate diagnosis, the current legislation surrounding pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, requires lengthy court cases and appeals—for example, in the case of the Hashmis—or requires people like the Whitakers to go abroad in order to have the prospect of saving the life of a sibling. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is sufficient to meet the challenges 14 years on? Will he consider introducing new legislation to bring that Act, which has stood the test of time reasonably well, completely up to date?
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the prospect of more personalised prediction of risk. Does he recognise the concern that exists about home testing genetic machines, and the prospect of vulnerable consumers being provided with information outside the context of advice that they require? The BBC suggested this morning that
	"Dr. Reid is likely to counter-balance this"—
	that is, the greater use of genetic testing—
	"by pledging new safeguards to minimise the risk of discrimination against people whose test result make for bad news",
	and that the White Paper was likely to
	"place restrictions on the sale of over-the-counter testing kits for inherited conditions."
	That is not dealt with in the White Paper or in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and I should be grateful if he would clarify his intentions.
	The Secretary of State spoke of the prospect of new gene-based therapies. That is an exciting prospect. I am a volunteer in a trial of a DNA vaccine for HIV. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the prospect of such therapies being available in the developing world is much more limited, and that the Government need a policy to ensure that the benefits are available to deal with disease in the developing world? Concentration on such work must not detract from work on diseases that do not require genetic treatment or diagnosis and affect the poorest in the world.
	The prospect of targeted prevention and treatment was mentioned. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that the new patient contract proposed by his party will not oblige patients to undergo genetic tests in order to register with a GP or to continue to get treatment from a GP?
	We welcome the proposal to legislate to tackle DNA theft. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of the inequity of insurance-based health care, but does he accept that other forms of insurance, the denial of which can drastically affect one's ability to go about one's business, is a real problem? Does he accept that the voluntary moratorium is insufficient? Can he not use the Bill that he proposes as an opportunity to legislate to prevent insurers requiring genetic tests before providing cover?
	We welcome efforts for new gene therapies for diseases such as cystic fibrosis, but does the Secretary of State recognise that our transplantation laws are inadequate? Many people who could be cured by transplantation are urging the Government to update those laws to enable the maximum possible use, with consent, of available organs.
	Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that public education is important, particularly as the genetic field is the area where science often faces most strongly the forces of anti-science? In that context, does he accept that language is important, and that referring, as the White Paper does, to screening babies at birth, instead of using terms such as "high-risk identification", is not helpful in the debate, as it leads people to misunderstand the true potential and power of those tests? We need to keep the public on board. The White Paper is a good start, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is still more to be done.

John Reid: I accept that there is a lot more to be done, not least because the pace of change in genetics, as in many modern scientific advances, is on an exponential curve. We must constantly examine not only the medical, but the legal, political and ethical issues raised, and those are not small issues.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a large number of questions. I shall try to answer them all, without impinging upon the indulgence of the Chair. If I miss any, I hope that I can write to the hon. Gentleman. He asked whether we intended to provide information for patients and the public on genetics. Yes, we certainly do, and we have made the finance available for that. NHS Direct has a role in that, and there are other ways of providing information.
	Of course, we will not allow ourselves to be consumed only with genetic health issues, interesting though the knowledge and associated technologies are. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that in many parts of the world and in the World Health Organisation's programmes, the more conventional approaches are extremely important. We will continue to support those as part of our overseas aid and in other ways.
	We do not envisage any compulsion on patients. If the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper, he will see that we stand against anyone being tested against their will, surreptitiously or otherwise. On the moratorium on insurance companies, the hon. Gentleman may know that there are three years to run on the existing moratorium. There will be further discussions on that. It is a tricky issue, taking into account the rights of the individuals, the companies and everyone else involved. We have made plain our view, and we will try to see that the matter can be satisfactorily resolved in the three years remaining.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about changes that may be necessary in the legislation. The Government are committed to ensuring that the key legislation, such as the 1990 Act, is up to date with new developments, and we will ask the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to keep these matters under review and to make any recommendations that it considers necessary. The HFEA is charged with that in the White Paper.
	On legislation to ban genetic discrimination, the Human Genetics Commission considered the matter in its report on personal genetic data. The Government agree with its conclusion that there is no systematic use of genetic information by employers, and that there is little evidence of unfair genetic discrimination. Nevertheless, in light of what I said about the moratorium and the use of genetic tests by insurers, we need to build on that. I announced today in the White Paper that we accept the HGC's recommendation that we consider the evidence for genetic discrimination in employment, insurance, education and other areas and consider what steps to take in the light of that review.
	Finally, like the hon. Gentleman, I extend my tribute to the scientists and members of organisations such as the HGC, whom I met this morning in my first public official duty, and a pleasant one it was to discuss some of these issues. I can tell the House that in 35 minutes I heard more contributions of a substantial nature from more people than I have ever heard in my discussions in politics. There were some pretty weighty contributions, and I and others can take a lesson in how to put our case briskly. Not only did I pass on our congratulations and thanks to them, but yesterday I saw in action the comfort that the revolutionary new genetics knowledge and technology can bring to so many families, when I visited the Great Ormond Street hospital. I saw there families who were afflicted by a gene disorder, FH—familial hypercholesterolaemia. There are some 100,000 people in this country who may have that and who could be helped by advances in genetics, as they are being helped at Great Ormond Street. I have no hesitation in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman that we all owe a tribute to the doctors and scientists who have been involved in that.

Jim Dowd: I warmly welcome the statement and the publication of the White Paper by my right hon. Friend. I particularly welcome his remarks about cystic fibrosis and research into other gene-based therapies. He will know that current research indicates that a cure is within reach, at a relatively small cost. Will he undertake to meet representatives of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, who have done so much to encourage research in this area over recent years, to try to find a course for an early end to that terrible disease?

John Reid: As my hon. Friend said, gene therapy is a new and innovative form of medical treatment which holds great promise, although we are all agreed that we must not over-hype the possibilities or fail to recognise the real assistance that can be given, medically and socially, to many families who have been in terrible distress. Today I have allocated additional funds for the treatment of cystic fibrosis, and I shall be only too pleased to meet representatives of those who, for many years, have borne the burden of the disease in their families and who, I hope, will take some relief and delight today from the fact that the Government are putting even more resources into treating and curing that disease.

Henry Bellingham: I welcome what the Secretary of State said about cystic fibrosis—many of my constituents and others in Norfolk will be very pleased about his comments—and his remarks about the ethical framework. However, I should like to pick up on his comment that, as our understanding of genetics increases, the case for private health insurance as an alternative to the NHS weakens. Surely, one of the current flaws in the NHS is its risk-averse culture and the huge budgetary restraints that often lead to rationing of drugs. For example, the other day, I met a group of constituents dealing with motor neurone disease, and they were very concerned about the rationing of a key drug. Surely the way forward, to maximise the benefits of genetics, is a public-private partnership.

John Reid: I would not want the hon. Gentleman to think for one moment that I do not appreciate or encourage the private sector's becoming involved in the development of treatments, cures and so on. In assisting us in bringing health care to the people of this country free at the point of need, the private sector plays a great role through private finance, public-private partnerships and so on. I have no hesitation in saying that; it applies outside and inside the field of genetics.
	I was making a rather different point. If we look away from who provides the service to the patients—I believe that the national health service should be a patient-centred health system—we can see that, from the patients' point of view, the predictability of health brings with it a danger of predicting that one's health will be much worse than average in future. Such a prediction will place people at a severe disadvantage in a system that depends in any way on private insurance. Inevitably, away from the average, we will create those whom I called a super-healthy class, and perhaps a super-underclass. It is only through an a priori agreement by everyone in this country that, irrespective of what is predicted for somebody, they will be provided with health care free at the point of need, that we can have not only a moral system, but one that is underpinned by scientific predictive advances. That is the point that I was making.

Jim Cousins: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement. I should like to pick up directly on the last very important point that he made in his previous reply. I am sure that he will be aware of the work of Professor Norman Burn and the team in Newcastle who have identified a gene that greatly increases the disposition to and risk of bowel cancer. He will also be aware that participating in a bowel cancer screening programme, undergoing a colonoscopy or, further down the line of risk, having a non-cancerous growth removed from the colon or bowel can at present be declarable conditions for insurance purposes which can trigger additional costs not only in health insurance, but in travel insurance, mortgage protection and a range of life insurances. Will he address that point and prevent the danger that he set out in his previous reply from arising?

John Reid: I am aware of the work to which my hon. Friend referred. Indeed, I spoke to some of those involved in it this morning at a breakfast seminar. On the specific point that he raised, I was making a general point about the national health service, but he made it with regard to a specific case and in relation to health insurance and other types of insurance. We have said that we have created a position in which it is not possible for insurers to insist that someone reveal the result of a genetic test. That is the position that has been agreed during the last period, in which there has been a moratorium. It will continue for three more years. During that period, it is our intention to try to arrive at a position not far removed from what he was suggesting, but we have to try to do that in a rather tricky world in which the rights of insurance companies and the way in which they function must be recognised, as well as the rights of individuals.
	We recognise that insurance companies have to evaluate risk and take into account evidence and statistics when doing so. At the same time, we want to avoid a position in which, as a result of genetic predictability, any individual cannot get insurance. Some tricky issues are involved. It is fair to say that, thus far, there has been good will on all sides, and I hope that that will continue. It will certainly do so for three years, which will give us time to reach some form of accommodation that will be suitable for all sides.

Paul Goodman: The Secretary of State seems to be saying that the genetic super-underclass—a phrase that I think he used a moment ago—is safe and secure only in a system that is free at the point of use. If that is so, can he explain what perils that group faces in countries that have social insurance systems? If the answer is that such people do not face substantial perils in those systems, why is he so certain that we have nothing to learn from our European neighbours, who run systems of precisely that kind?

John Reid: Heavens! I would never suggest that I have nothing to learn from anyone—even Opposition Members. We can all learn; part of the virtue of this House is that, through dialogue, we occasionally learn. I was saying not that other systems could not provide adequate health care, but that as the predictability of an individual's health becomes verifiably ascertainable for the future, a system that is based on an a priori agreement that people will be treated irrespective of that information is much more likely to be able to cope with the social tensions caused by predictability and division.
	I have always believed that the moral case for a national health service in respect of which we all agree that everyone will get health care that is free at the point of need is overwhelming. I also happen to have good reason to value that service, as it saved my life when I was a young man. I believe that the increasing predictability that comes with the extension of genetics is giving that a further scientific underpinning, because if we do not have a service that is based on an a priori agreement that we will be covered by a national insurance policy whatever life may hold for us and may be predicted to hold for us, it will become much more difficult for there to be a cohesive society, as some people will find it difficult, if not impossible, to get insurance.

Laura Moffatt: Today's announcement has brought very sharply into focus the benefits—as if Labour Members needed to be told—of a universal health service that is free at the point of use, including for the families that are suffering from the genetic conditions that cause so much distress. Does my right hon. Friend accept that we need not only to get to the representative groups that rightly campaign on these issues, but to ensure that consultation with families is understandable and is conducted in language that they know how to use? Does he accept that we must also use Members of the House to assist in consultation in respect of the White Paper and to bring back to the House the issues that those families want to raise with the Government in a way that we know is productive and inclusive?

John Reid: Certainly, as my hon. Friend said, we should always seek to secure more patient involvement. That is part of the general posture that I shall attempt to adopt in trying to make the patient the centre of our attention, to decentralise decision making so far as I can in respect of national standards and comprehensive provision, and to involve patients in the design of the system, which is there to serve them and not us or anyone else.
	My hon. Friend again makes the point about the consequences of increasingly being able to predict someone's health care—although, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, we are some way off being able to do that with great authority for everyone. If health care finance is based on private insurance, any insurance company will tend to use the results of genetic testing to predict and to limit its risk. If the test predicts the likelihood of disease, the insurance premiums will be very high—for most people, unaffordable. That is self-evident in the long run. Consequently, private medical insurance will tend to cover only those people without genetically predisposed risks and fail to cover the rest. I did not make that the central point of our discussion, but if hon. Members wish to contest it I am willing to argue the case on the ground of the national health service.

Sandra Gidley: The commitment to developing gene-based therapies is welcome. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether such therapies will be subject to appraisal by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence? If so, will he concede that NICE has often delayed the implementation of a therapy and, given its very heavy forward workload, what will he do to ease the situation?

John Reid: In my short spell at the Dispatch Box in this job, I have not come across the issue of delays in NICE, but I shall look into it and write to the hon. Lady, if I may.

Sandra Gidley: What about genetic therapies?

John Reid: I shall write to the hon. Lady about that.

Ian Gibson: In five or 10 years' time, this document will have made a significant difference to the lives and health of people not only in this country, but in developing countries. I am tempted to put forward the names of my right hon. Friend and his predecessor for a Nobel prize, because this contribution will be as world shattering as that of Watson, Crick and the others. It will empower people to ask about their predispositions, which will enable them to make decisions about their diet and lifestyle—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be making a statement, but asking a question. Can he make it short?

Ian Gibson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the new emphasis on prevention represents a radical shift in our national health service that we all welcome?

John Reid: The answer to my hon. Friend is yes on every count, with one exception. Modesty forbids my being put forward, even by my hon. Friend, for the Nobel prize, although that will be a great source of envy to all my colleagues in Government, not all of whom have been suggested by him as contenders for a prize of any sort.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the great benefits of the path that we have followed on genetics is the information that will allow us to rely on prevention to a far greater measure and with greater success than previously.

Mark Francois: I welcome what the Secretary of State said about cystic fibrosis, because that is important information for those of my constituents who suffer from that disease.
	In a more partisan spirit, may I challenge his point about insurance? He sought to argue that genetics will have an implication for people with some form of health insurance, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) noted—in a social insurance model that risk is, by definition, spread over a considerable number of people. That obviates the Secretary of State's point about increasing the price of insurance for individuals.

John Reid: I have nothing against insurance of any nature. I am probably the only man in the House who is an associate of the Chartered Insurance Institute.

Barry Gardiner: indicated dissent.

John Reid: We commandeer almost every field of learning on this side of the House.
	In the face of the increasing predictability of individuals' health—we are not there yet, but it will come—any civilised society can base its health care only on an a priori agreement that we will all pay for it through general taxation and will all benefit from it, irrespective of any evidence about our own futures. That is a decision that was taken many years ago—chiefly a political and moral decision, although not exclusively, because it was taken on the basis of experience, too. The underlying political and moral values of the national health service have increasingly been underpinned by scientific discovery and practical reality.

Andy Burnham: I add my welcome to the White Paper, which charts the right course through a difficult area. I, too, particularly welcome the focus on cystic fibrosis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) said, there is a realistic chance of a cure, but we do not know how long it will take for the research programme to make the all-important breakthrough. With that in mind, now that we have embarked on the course of trying to find a cure, can we stick with it and work with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust to get the result that we all want?

John Reid: Indeed. I know that my hon. Friend plays a valuable role on the Select Committee on Health. Today, I agreed to meet representatives of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend and any other Members who are interested in it. We are putting millions of pounds into that field, as well as considerable financial resources into others. After today, there will be an extra £50 million—a major programme of investment—to upgrade the NHS genetic testing laboratories; to bring in additional counsellors; to pilot schemes, not only on cystic fibrosis, but on familial hypercholesterolaemia and other areas; and to bring awareness of and education in the benefits of genetics to the NHS in general. I would not claim that today is as major an event as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) suggested, but it is a not insignificant White Paper and not an insignificant day.

David Cameron: Will the Secretary of State take it from me, as the relatively recent father of a child with severe epilepsy, cerebral palsy and developmental delay, and as someone who has had genetic counselling in the past month, that the statement and the Government's approach will be warmly welcomed by many families with disabled children? Does he recognise that parents of disabled children are often told that their child's condition is idiopathic or cryptogenic, which actually means that no one has a clue as to its cause? Is it not the case that genetic research provides the best chance of getting to the bottom of such issues and giving families hope for the future? Could he clarify how much of the new resources will go into research into disability in general and into epilepsy in particular?

John Reid: I can add little to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. No one bears better testimony to the potential and actual benefits of what we discussing than those who are directly involved, or in families who are involved, in coping with such difficulties and stresses. His eloquence speaks for all those families who can see, if not immediate relief, at least the possibility of some relief in future. I am delighted that he, along with many others, will benefit immediately or may benefit somewhere down the line.
	We are putting some £7 million into new initiatives to get genetics-based health care into primary care, and we are putting money into the two pilots that I mentioned. Among a range of other initiatives, we have pilots in six cancer network areas and we are piloting on heart disease too. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's specific question off the top of my head, but I shall write to him to clarify not only the finances, but the range of support that we are giving to the development of this very important area.

Doug Naysmith: I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box in his capacity as Secretary of State for Health. I particularly welcome his strong endorsement of the principles of the national health service and his commitment to them. He mentioned Francis Crick. Of course, that was a wonderful achievement for British science, which still underlies all that we do now. However, genetics began in a previous century with a monk called Gregor Mendel, who separated rounded peas from smooth peas. Ever since his work became known, this has been a controversial subject in science—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a question now.

Doug Naysmith: Will my right hon. Friend explain how he intends to ensure that the ethical and scientific aspects of this science are kept apart, as he applies them to medical treatment in the national health service?

John Reid: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you were quite right to interrupt what I have to admit to having found a fascinating exposition of the genetic equivalent of Newton's apple, which appeared to involve mushy peas, if I understood my hon. Friend correctly. I will get the end of the story from him later.
	On the serious point that my hon. Friend raised, of course we recognise that genetic advances bring very real ethical and social concerns. There is a difficult balance to be struck here. He mentioned the history of these matters. All scientific work has resulted in society having to develop an ethical framework in which to consider scientific advances. The advances are now being made at such a rate that it is often difficult for us to develop an ethical framework to cope with them at the same time. We have already taken action, however, by introducing the moratorium on some of the practical implications that will flow from these advances. We are one of the few countries in the world to have passed legislation to ban reproductive cloning, and, above all, we are committed to ensuring openness and transparency in the debate on genetic policy making. We need to have a debate; we should not take anything for granted. This is not a scientific advance that we can just apply without considering its ethical consequences. This is the place for that debate, and it should be open and inclusive. I am sure that, at the end of the day, the debate on the ethics of these issues will not come down to any easily defined party positions.

Bob Russell: May I make what is for me a somewhat rare observation by warmly welcoming the statement from the Government today? I would like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to early-day motion 1, which has so far been signed by more than 150 Members across the House, and which relates to those adult sufferers of cystic fibrosis who still have to pay prescription charges. Bearing in mind the fact that the Cystic Fibrosis Trust believes that the sum involved in relieving those sufferers from paying prescription charges would be about £100,000 a year, will the Secretary of State consider such a move as a serious option? I am not asking for anything revolutionary—merely the implementation of what was in Labour's 1997 general election manifesto.

John Reid: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his introductory comments. Secondly, I cannot give him an answer today, but I will look at the point that he has raised.

Phyllis Starkey: Among the potential benefits of pharmacogenetics will be the more effective targeting of drugs towards patients on whom they will work—as opposed to patients on whom they will not—and the more effective targeting of preventive health advice. This will mean a profound rethinking of the way in which primary care works. I know that the Secretary of State has announced certain pilot projects in primary care, but will he also give some thought to how primary care trusts could be thinking now about the implications for the future planning of primary care services, to ensure that we get the full benefit of these scientific improvements as they are introduced?

John Reid: I agree entirely with the thrust of both points that my hon. Friend raises. People tend to think that the only use for the latest discoveries in gene therapy is to identify a gene that can be mended, leading to a cure. In fact, the information and the accuracy of diagnosis now available—which can lead to treatment modifications for those who can benefit most, or for those who might suffer side-effects, for example—is equally immense. We should not forget that.
	On my hon. Friend's second point, this is not just a specialised form of study and application—although it is that. It also has the potential to revolutionise the whole of primary care. That is precisely why we have made provision in the White Papers not only for the scientific and physical matters under investigation, but for the wider educative process and for entrenching a knowledge of genetics and gene therapy within the mainstream of the NHS, and for educating a broad spread of those working in it about their benefits about the associated technology.

Tom Watson: Today's announcement will further enhance the UK's reputation as a world leader in genetic medical science. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the research teams in London, Oxford and Edinburgh that have already drawn up detailed research proposals in partnership with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust? When he meets representatives of the trust, will he consider its proposal that, for only £15 million over three years, the hopes and dreams of the 7,500 sufferers of cystic fibrosis in the UK could be realised?

John Reid: I will look at that issue, but my hon. Friend will realise that I cannot make a decision on it today. There is an almost infinite demand for resources, and a huge well of human suffering and discomfort. We try, so far as we can, to allocate the resources in terms of priorities—using, if I may say so, the language of socialism, as Nye Bevan once said. He was not an Englishman either.
	On my hon. Friend's serious point, we have announced today £2.5 million for cystic fibrosis, £3 million for other single-gene disorders, and £4 million to be spent providing the NHS and public sector researchers with access to high-quality genes. In all, we are providing £50 million to advance this programme. I am not suggesting that that is sufficient, but within the overall priorities and pressures that are put on the NHS budget—which treats 1 million people every 36 hours—this is an indication of how seriously we take the matter. I hope that it will offer some relief immediately, and some hope in the longer term to the many families who have suffered the stress, discomfort and pain of seeing a loved one suffer from cystic fibrosis.

Anne Campbell: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him to pay particular attention to those individuals who choose not to know what their DNA is, or whether they might have a single-gene disorder for which there may, as yet, be no cure?

John Reid: Yes, I shall pay attention to that matter. We must try to avail ourselves of the advantages in scientific advancement at the same time as avoiding compulsion. I hope that we will extend the range of our knowledge and the number of people involved in this programme, through the UK biobank. This is an ambitious flagship project, undertaking vital research; as I have pointed out today, it is the largest of its kind in the world. We also hope that the biobank will hold data from 500,000 volunteers, but that will be done on a voluntary basis. We will protect the information that is held, and, more generally, we are doing what we can to protect the privacy of those who wish to undertake genetic testing to satisfy themselves as to their own health. We would also wish to ensure that we were not involving ourselves in any element of compulsion in regard to the new scientific advances.

Road Safety

Mark Lazarowicz: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide local traffic authorities with powers to develop urban safety hierarchies; to identify 20mph zones and home zones; to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the setting of speed limits; and for connected purposes.
	My reason for proposing the Bill is that, notwithstanding the measures to improve road safety taken by the Government and many local authorities of different political colours, there are still too many people who die or are injured on our roads every year. The toll is particularly high among pedestrians and cyclists in urban areas, particularly child pedestrians. The Bill that I propose would encourage local authorities and the Government to take measures that I believe would result in a significant drop in the number of people killed and severely injured on the roads. It would do that by focusing on speed, as excessive speed is a major contributory factor to the death toll on our roads.
	The aim of my Bill is to encourage local councils to adopt a comprehensive approach to managing speed on urban roads in their area, and in particular to encourage the wider introduction of 20 mph zones. I acknowledge that many local authorities have done a lot of good work to improve road safety in their area, not least in my own city of Edinburgh. However, if we look at the picture in the United Kingdom as a whole, there is still significant room for improvement. Indeed, the rate of death and serious injury to child pedestrians in Britain is one of the highest in the European Union.
	The facts are clear: speed is a major cause of many of these deaths and injuries. At present, however, although local authority transport plans are required to take into account targets for casualty reductions, only one third of those plans contain a recognisable speed management strategy.
	My Bill would encourage all local authorities to develop a strategy for speed management on roads in their area. It would introduce the concept of the urban safety hierarchy, in which local council roads in urban areas would be classified as one of three types: residential, distributor or access roads. Residential roads would automatically have a 20 mph speed limit; distributor roads, which are largely for through traffic, would retain the existing 30 mph limit; and speed limits on access roads that link residential with distributor roads would be either 20 or 30 mph, depending on their nature.
	My Bill would give local authorities throughout the country the option of introducing a hierarchy approach; they would not be obliged to do so. That would enable forward-thinking councils to adopt a broader, strategic approach to speed management, which is denied to them by existing legislation.
	My Bill could, and I hope would, bring about a much wider coverage of 20 mph zones in residential areas throughout the country. Although most Members will be familiar with 20 mph zones in many—probably most—local authority areas in the country, overall they cover only a very small percentage of residential roads in urban areas. Extending the coverage of 20 mph zones would be one of the most effective ways of reducing the death and injury toll on urban roads. Research on existing zones has shown that in the year after their introduction, accidents resulting in injuries fell by an average of 61 per cent. and accidents resulting in injuries to children fell by 67 per cent.
	My Bill would also require the Secretary of State to issue new guidance for local councils on the setting of limits on urban roads. That would replace the existing rules, which are largely inadequate because they are based on the speed at which vehicles travel at the moment, rather than the speed that is appropriate for a particular road.
	Last but not least, my proposed Bill would encourage the growth of home zones by giving local councils the power to implement speed orders in such areas to provide for speeds of no higher than 10 mph. Currently, only 14 home zones are in operation in the UK, with another 61 in the pipeline. If there is to be a real countrywide roll-out of home zones, the Government need to use their powers under the Transport Act 2000 to introduce regulations to allow local authorities to declare what are known as "speed" and "use" orders in home zone areas. Without such regulations, which have been awaited for three years, I fear that the concept of the home zone will not really take off in the UK as it has done so successfully in many European countries. Hon. Members may be aware of the situation in the Netherlands and Germany, where the home zone is a well-known feature of the urban landscape. The home zone should be not an occasional, exotic creation, but an arrangement that is the norm in residential areas up and down the country.
	I shall close by reminding hon. Members that this year about 700 pedestrians and cyclists were killed on Britain's urban roads alone, and about 10,000 were seriously injured. There are also accidents involving motorists and a toll of death and injury on rural roads. If the number of people who die or are seriously injured on the roads were the product of one serious incident on the railways or in the air, there would be an outcry for immediate and instant action. It is time that we treated the death and injury toll on our roads with the same urgency. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which has done much good work in this area, has estimated that the measures I propose in the Bill, if fully implemented across the country, could save up to 450 of the 700 lives of pedestrians and cyclists that are lost each year in urban areas. For that reason, I ask the House to support my Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Lazarowicz, Helen Jackson, Ms Julia Drown, Peter Bottomley, Ms Joan Walley, Mr. David Kidney, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mr. Don Foster, Tom Brake, Rob Marris and David Wright.

Road Safety

Mr. Mark Lazarowicz accordingly presented a Bill to provide local traffic authorities with powers to develop urban safety hierarchies; to identify 20 mph zones and home zones; to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the setting of speed limits; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 132].

Anti-social Behaviour Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Hazel Blears: I beg to move,
	That the programme order of 8th April 2003 in relation to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill be varied as follows—
	Consideration and Third Reading
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	3. The proceedings shown in the first column of the Table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		TABLE
		
			 Proceedings Time for conclusionof proceedings 
			 Amendments to Part 1, New Clauses relating to Part 1, New Schedules relating to Part 1, amendments to Clauses 12 to 14, Schedule 1 and Clauses 15 to 17, New Clauses relating to Part 2, New Schedules relating to Part 2, amendments to Part 3, New Clauses relating to Part 3, New Schedules relating to Part 3. An hour and three quarters after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. 
			 Amendments to Part 4, New Clauses relating to Part 4, New Schedules relating to Part 4, amendments to Clauses 36 to 39, Schedule 2 and Clauses 40 and 41, New Clauses relating to Part 5, New Schedules relating to Part 5. Three and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. 
			 Amendments to Part 6, New Clauses relating to Part 6, New Schedules relating to Part 6, amendments to Part 7, New Clauses relating to Part 7, New Schedules relating to Part 7, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules, amendments to Clause 56, Schedule 3 and Clauses 57 to 61, remaining proceedings on the Bill. Five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. 
		
	
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
	I am pleased to be part of the consideration of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. This issue is close to my heart, and is very important to my community in Salford—it is probably our top issue. I should like to place on record my grateful thanks to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), for his impressive handling of the Bill in Committee. He dealt with some extensive debates tremendously. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who was an effective member of the Committee. As I am new to the Bill, I shall look to her for support during these proceedings.
	I do not want to detain the House, because I am sure that all hon. Members are keen to get on with the substance of the debate. Much consultation has taken place through the usual channels, and I am grateful for the support of Opposition parties on this matter. I should also like to thank the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who did much to facilitate the overwhelmingly positive and constructive debates that took place in Committee.
	The motion provides for the total amount of time for discussion of the Bill to be six hours. I hope that the structure of the programme motion will allow hon. Members to debate the subjects that they want to discuss, as there are important matters before us. I suggest that we get on with that debate as quickly as we possibly can to ensure that we have time to explore the issues.

James Paice: I welcome the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety and, indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who, as has been rightly remarked, was an esteemed member of the Committee that considered the Bill. I hope only that, during the afternoon, in her ministerial capacities she does not have to say things that are at odds with what she said when she was a Back-Bench Committee member. Time will tell. I congratulate both Ministers on their appointments and welcome them to their posts and to the debate.
	I share in the plaudits to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who led the Bill constructively. Many of the amendments and new clauses that we shall discuss later are the result, I am pleased to say, of him listening to the arguments. We shall deal with those in detail.
	The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety said that much discussion took place with the usual channels. That is true, but it was based on a certain lack of information—I will not go so far as to say misinformation—inasmuch as that negotiation took place on Wednesday and it was not until Thursday that the Government tabled a vast tranche of new clauses and amendments. Therefore, the discussions on the timetable motion were in terms of six hours instead of the usual six and a half. We know, because of earlier proceedings, one of the reasons for that, but the overall time was reduced, only one day was allocated and the knives fall where they fall because, as I say, we did not appreciate what the Government were going to do on Thursday.
	Obviously, I am not at this stage saying whether those new clauses and amendments meet with our approval. That issue will come up during the afternoon. Some we welcome and some less so. Some are substantial and some were not previously indicated by the Government, in particular the amendment on residential courses under parenting orders. At no time was that raised in a previous discussion; it has come completely out of the blue to us. The amendments and new clauses were tabled on Thursday. We have had little or no time to consult on those with interested specialist organisations outside the House.
	The Minister is right that we want to get on to debate those issues. Nevertheless, there is a point of principle here. The Government, having consulted with us in, we thought, good faith, later tabled a range of new items to be debated. Therefore, the timetable that we previously agreed is no longer apposite and I wish to oppose the motion.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend advances the argument about the timetable motion with that combination of reserve and self-effacement for which he is renowned in all parts of the House. Does he agree that, in the light of the fact that we have no fewer than 105 new clauses and amendments to consider today, and that that entails an average time allocation of fewer than three minutes per new clause and amendment, the Government are doing violence to the responsibilities of Parliament to scrutinise legislation?

James Paice: My hon. Friend puts it in words that, as he rightly describes me as using reserve, I perhaps would not use, but it is an abuse of parliamentary procedure to agree a timetable through the usual channels and then effectively to destroy the appropriateness of that timetable by tabling all these amendments and new clauses.

Graham Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore support the declaration that Leader of the House made this morning that, wherever possible, all future Bills should go through pre-legislative scrutiny, so that the Government can import ideas, if not amendments, at a very early stage?

James Paice: I was not present when the part-time Leader of the House made that remark—

Graham Allen: The hon. Gentleman must be part-time, otherwise he would have heard the Leader of the House.

James Paice: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am certainly not part-time.
	Of course, Conservative Members always welcome pre-legislative scrutiny. If that is to be the Government's approach to all legislation, they will not find opposition from those on the Conservative Benches.
	I wish to proceed with discussion of the Bill, but I believe that it is right that the House should put down a marker that we do not approve of what has happened in the past few days. Therefore, we shall seek to divide the House on the motion.

Simon Hughes: I warmly welcome the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), to their new positions. The team has been welcomed collectively, but it is the first time that they have come into bat on a Home Office Bill. We are glad to engage with them. We hope to persuade them and we hope that they do not come with fixed views.
	We know that it is always difficult for Ministers picking up a Bill that has been led by others—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley, was a Back Bencher on the Committee—suddenly to come to it with fresh thinking, but my hon. Friends and I hope that some of the arguments that we shall advance today will receive at least a positive response; obviously, we will not get all that we want this afternoon. We look forward to this afternoon's debate and to forthcoming debates.
	I shall be brief because, as a result of the constraints that we are under, this debate is eating into the time to debate the substance. My colleagues and I share the view that this is exactly the sort of Bill that should not be guillotined. That is not a criticism of the Government Whip, who as always is as accommodating as he is allowed to be. The reality is not just that Government amendments and new clauses have been tabled after discussions about the timetable, but that we have portmanteau legislation.
	The first part should be in a criminal justice Bill. The second and third parts should be in a housing Bill; they should not be in this Bill at all and need proper debate. The fourth part should be in an education Bill. The fifth part would be significant and controversial in any legislation and has received a critical report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of both Houses of Parliament. The sixth part is not quite as controversial, and is to do with fixed penalty notices. The evidence that we were promised has not yet been forthcoming.
	The seventh part should partly be in a children's Bill; the new Minister for Children no doubt has some interest in it. It is possibly a Department for Education and Skills matter or a social services matter. There are local government implications. Then we come to matters that are never uncontroversial: legislation about firearms, significant changes to do with age limits and powers. There is always controversy and proper debate about those. That is followed by environmental and graffiti matters. Every hon. Member has an interest in those—Back Benchers who were not on the Committee and who are not spokespeople for their parties may have something to say. Lastly, there are matters that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know about from your constituency and most rural colleagues know a lot about, although urban colleagues may deal with them not infrequently: matters to do with trespass, land use and travellers.
	Those are major controversial issues. To think that we can do justice to those matters in six hours defies the most disciplined people in the most disciplined of Parliaments. It is just not possible.

David Wright: The hon. Gentleman said that it was not appropriate to guillotine today's business. How long does he think we should debate the Bill for, and what would he say to residents in Oakengates in my constituency, who on Friday insisted that the powers in the Bill be brought in as quickly as possible?

Simon Hughes: There are two issues there. People always want things as soon as possible. They will not know what is in the Bill. [Interruption.] Even if they do, I hope that they would expect Parliament to do its job properly.
	The worst legislation is rushed legislation. The worst of the worst legislation is where Government Back Benchers do not properly scrutinise those on the Government Front Bench. The worst of the worst of the worst legislation is a Bill such as this, which was a shop window exercise before the local elections. It is a Christmas tree of a Bill, with some things clearly intended to be entirely window-dressing exercises, rather than properly thought-through legislation. I shall not get into the whole debate now.

Graham Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: Let me finish dealing with the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright). Other than Ministers, it is the job of all of us to scrutinise the Government. If he thinks that the whole House of Commons can scrutinise the Government on a Bill such as this in six hours, he is denying proper scrutiny of the Executive. The Bill probably would be adequately debated over two days; that is the answer. If he thinks that antisocial behaviour is important, it should be given two days and Parliament should be able to do its job properly.

Graham Allen: It is incumbent on all those who complain about programme motions to come up with a positive alternative and to put it to the House, and I hope that pre-legislative scrutiny provides for that. However, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He complains about the Bill's cross-Departmental elements, but that is the joined-up thinking through which various Departments contribute to a matter that does not fall within the ambit of a particular Department. I know that the hon. Gentleman has to score his point, but I hope that he accepts that it is a considerable breakthrough for Ministers to be working together in this way.

Simon Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am completely signed up to trying to get more joined-up thinking. That is why my colleagues and I welcomed, encouraged and supported cross-Departmental Question Time in Westminster Hall, and why we submitted questions. Indeed, I was the Member who asked the first question in the cross-Departmental Question Time on youth matters. It is important to try to achieve a broad range.

Dari Taylor: rose—

Simon Hughes: I happen to know that there is a lot of controversy between Departments about this Bill, and that some were not nearly as keen as the Home Office on certain of the measures in it. I also happen to know that there were many rows inside the Government. Some felt that they were being bulldozed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are making a meal of something that is not within the terms of the motion before the House. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman return to the motion.

Simon Hughes: The point in relation to timetabling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that those matters may deserve to be explored. However—

Dari Taylor: rose—

Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady please wait a second? Pre-legislative scrutiny is of course a way of ensuring that we do not have such difficulties later on. I entirely support and have always supported—as have my colleagues—the use of White Papers and Green Papers and various pre-legislative processes. Such processes always improve matters, so that we are less rushed and have to deal less frequently with last-minute amendments.

Dari Taylor: rose—

Simon Hughes: I shall give way, but for the last time.

Dari Taylor: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Will he acknowledge that we spent more than 80 hours considering the Bill in Committee, that he was present for none of that time—it is appropriate that that be said—and that at each sitting the discussions were full and complete? No one was left wanting to make a statement, and we did not run out of time.

Simon Hughes: Of course I acknowledge that, but I should hope that the hon. Lady knows by now that only a few colleagues are nominated to a Standing Committee. I was not nominated for the Committee in question, but my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Ludlow (Matthew Green) were, and they served on it throughout. Indeed, the hon. Lady will remember that they were assiduous in their contributions. This is the time when the rest of us get our say. Some 20 people served in Committee, but the rest of the 659 Members of Parliament—excluding those who are members of the Government—may want to have their say today.

Dari Taylor: rose—

Andrew Selous: rose—

Simon Hughes: I shall not give way again. [Interruption.] I said that I am not going to give way again.
	Today is an opportunity for those who did not serve in Committee to have their say. Since proceedings began in Committee, some 530 Members have not had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. If they want to speak, this is the occasion to do so, and we should allow them the necessary time.
	My colleagues—like the Conservatives and, I hope, Labour Back Benchers who are in favour of free speech and proper scrutiny—will oppose the timetable motion because we believe that Bills such as this deserve more time on the Floor of the House.

Hazel Blears: I can tell that we are going to have an extremely lively debate. I was about to say that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was perhaps guilty of hyperbole—unlike the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who dealt with the issues with some reserve—but it is clear that the hyperbole is infectious. I am sure that we are going to have a great day.
	On the specific point about residential parenting orders that was made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, my predecessor, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth)—whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber—pointed out in Committee, in respect of the relevant clause:
	"The clause . . . needs to be modified to allow greater flexibility in the delivery of programmes"—
	a view shared by everybody in Committee—
	"for example by making a residential component possible where it is considered necessary."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 8 May 2003; c. 103.]
	So that issue was clearly flagged up in Committee and is not new.

Andrew Selous: Does the Minister share my regret that new clause 3, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), will not be debated today? There is a lot to be said for putting parenting within the scope of the national curriculum, so that a stigma is not attached to specific parents when, as part of a parenting order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not talk about a new clause or amendment that has not been selected for debate, and he certainly should not even attempt to talk about such matters during a debate on a programme motion. I call Ms Hazel Blears.

Hazel Blears: On the other concerns raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I acknowledge that it is right that Members have proper time to consider amendments. My understanding is that virtually all the issues to which the new clauses and amendments relate were raised in Committee. It is fair to say that in this instance, we have been a very responsive and listening Government, and we have tried to introduce proposals that meet the Committee's concerns. Whether the hon. Gentleman can support them remains to be seen, but we have certainly endeavoured to deal with some of the issues that were raised.

John Bercow: I much appreciate the Minister's earlier remarks—I have never been accused of reserve and I should be very sorry indeed to lose my record thus far. I say to her in all candour and seriousness that pre-legislative scrutiny, although extremely valuable, is never a substitute for, or an alternative to, proper scrutiny on the Floor of the House, particularly in the minds of those who were not such privileged citizens as those who participated in the Standing Committee.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point—for once—and belies his reputation. Pre-legislative scrutiny is a useful tool—in addition to the scrutiny that we undertake on behalf of those who sent us here. That is an important role.
	There was plenty of time in Committee to debate all of these issues. I understand that time did not run out—in fact, unusually, things were a little lax—so I am surprised that Members feel so strongly about this issue.

James Paice: The Minister must not confuse consideration in Committee with proceedings on the Floor of the House. What she says about the Standing Committee is perfectly true, but there were many issues that the Government took away. I repeat: it was not until Thursday that we knew that the Government were going to respond to those issues at this stage. We were not aware, bearing in mind the proceedings in the other place to follow, that the Government intended to wait until Thursday to deal with these matters. My concern was not what the Government did, but that they did not act in time for us properly to scrutinise their new proposals.

Hazel Blears: As I said, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns and I hope that, during today's proceedings, we will have a good opportunity to ventilate issues that were canvassed in Committee but perhaps not discussed in great detail.
	I should point out to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that individuals and communities do not conform to the silos of Government Departments. We in this House should be grateful that this Bill constitutes an attempt to put the victim, the witness and the community at the centre, and to wrap services around them in an innovative way, to try to ensure that the law that we pass really does address the needs of those communities, rather than of individual Government Departments. We need to look at this issue from a different perspective, and with a little imagination and creativity. This Bill is an excellent example of Ministers and Departments working together. It will not be perfect, but making a start through this Bill is an excellent way to proceed.
	I do not want to delay the House any longer. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made a very good point about integrated government and new ways of working, and I commend the programme motion to the House.

Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 175.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Closure Notice

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 1, line 8, after 'A', insert 'B or C'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 63, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
	No. 65, in page 3, line 3, in clause 2, after 'A', insert 'B or C'.
	No. 64, in page 3, line 3, at end insert 'or'.
	No. 66, in page 3, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).
	No. 67, in page 3, line 5, at end insert 'or'.
	No. 68, in page 3, line 6, leave out paragraph (c).
	No. 92, in page 6, line 37, in clause 9, after 'constable', insert 'or authorised person'.
	No. 69, in page 8, line 2, in clause 11, at end insert—
	'and Class B and Class C controlled drugs which are Class B and Class C drugs within the meaning of that Act'.
	Government amendment No. 30.

Nick Hawkins: The Conservatives have no problem with the clarification contained in Government amendment No. 30, which helpfully pursues a point that we made in Committee. My interpretation of amendment No. 92, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is that it is also an attempt to clarify matters.
	We discussed in Committee the issues relating to the extension of the powers to close premises in which drug dealing is taking place to cover class B and C drugs, as well as class A drugs—as the Bill currently provides. We feel so strongly about the matter that we are returning to it again today. We voted on it in Committee and although, of course, we were defeated by the massed ranks of Labour Back Benchers, we wish to debate this important matter again today. We had some support from Labour Back Benchers in Committee. Indeed, in response to similar amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, some helpful comments were made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), now Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Of course, she then had the freedom of the Back Benches. I join my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in welcoming both Ministers to their posts, but we will look with interest at everything that the Under-Secretary said when she spoke for herself as a Back Bencher in Committee, in case she is briefed to say slightly different things now that she has been elevated to her new position. On this group of amendments, she was helpful to the case that I am seeking to put, because she pointed out that people who have taken cannabis can often behave in a very silly way. That supports my point that the extra powers would be useful in seeking to deal with antisocial behaviour.
	The Liberal Democrats were, as usual, all over the place, with their two spokesmen on the Committee failing to agree with each other, and their more senior spokesman—the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke)— expressing reservations about her policy stance on such matters at their party conference. She said that she would give details of her personal position later. But the Conservatives feel that the powers of the police to close premises where antisocial behaviour has arisen because of class B drugs should be extended to class C drugs. That is because the Government have—unwisely, in our view—announced plans to downgrade cannabis from class B to class C. However, we have noted that the Government have now put back the date on which that downgrading will take place, and we have seen some media coverage of that in the past.
	Our position can be succinctly stated. It would be helpful if police officers had the discretion to close premises if antisocial behaviour arose from the use of class B and class C drugs on those premises. As I pointed out in Committee, if one property in a street—and this is particularly true of tourist resorts with many small bed-and-breakfast establishments—becomes known as a place where drug dealing takes place, the bad drives out the good. The good hotelier, who is uninvolved in drugs, will get fewer and fewer customers, because it becomes known that the street contains a property that is used for drug dealing, the consumption of drugs or both. Because of such antisocial behaviour, we say that if the police had the discretion to intervene even in cases in which it cannot be proved that class A drugs are involved, it would be in the interests of the law-abiding members of the community.
	The Government's response in Committee was that there is a particular problem with class A drugs—for example, crack houses—and we accept that. Many members of the Committee made that point from their knowledge of their constituencies and other inner-city areas. However, our response was that problems could arise from other drug use. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), in particular, gave us some support for that view from the Labour Back Benches. If premises are used to produce, manufacture or distribute class B or C drugs, people—especially young people—can be drawn into the drugs subculture. We accept that some of the existing powers may not always be used properly by the forces of law and order, and local people often put pressure on them to do more. The powers in the Bill that are restricted to class A drugs could, if used properly, provide some extra strings for the police's bow. From my experience over many years, both prosecuting and defending drugs cases at the Bar in the midlands, I know that the problems are not restricted to class A drugs.
	I hope that the Government will continue to consider the matter thoroughly. Even if they cannot accept amendments Nos. 62 to 69, we would be delighted if the Minister will undertake to keep the matter under review and consult with local authorities and senior police officers. Many of them will tell her that it would be useful if the powers were not restricted solely to class A drugs.

Annette Brooke: I wish to begin by putting on record the thanks of Liberal Democrat Members for the work done in Standing Committee by the former Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and for the part that he played in our debates. We may have had some quite strong disagreements, but the then Minister's good humour and ability to listen to all points of view was very welcome.
	I too shall be brief. We had a comprehensive discussion in Committee of this part of the Bill. There was a strong feeling that the aim should be to target class A drugs, to tackle very serious issues of antisocial behaviour, and to use resources effectively.
	The Conservative amendments are strange in places. They would mean that ordinary households could face closure notices, and their inclusion of class C drugs could lead to the criminalisation of millions of people. That would be less than productive, given the specific aim of the Bill. We need effective action to deal with what is a very serious problem.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) was right to say that amendment No. 92 returns to an issue that we have raised before. We are not sure that the matter that it addresses is absolutely clear, and I hope that the Minister will give us more reassurance on that. The House will recall that the debate in Committee began with the statement in clause 3 that a
	"constable or an authorised person"
	may enter premises and do anything
	"reasonably necessary to secure the premises against entry by any person."
	It was explained in Committee that the authorised person could be a carpenter. Our amendment No. 92 deals with clause 9, which exempts the constable from certain damages but which does not mention the authorised person. That person—the carpenter—could do damage to the property involved. We do not want to give the authorised person unlimited liability, but a balance has to be struck. Our amendment is the simplest way to ensure that the carpenter—or authorised person—would not get caught up in litigation.
	We are also worried about the safety of the authorised person in the situation set out in clause 9. Is it clear that all the people present have been removed from the premises by the police? If a person under the influence of drugs goes back into the building, there is a danger that he might attack the authorised person.
	I hope that amendment No. 92 makes crystal clear our concerns about clause 9.

Dari Taylor: I hope that the House will not agree to amendments Nos. 62 to 69. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) put her finger on the problem very neatly. We are talking about very dangerous addictive drugs. People who use crack are often totally out of control. The specific requirements for crack and heroin are different from what is needed in connection with other drugs. All of us in the Chamber should acknowledge that.
	Rejecting the Conservative amendments would also make it clear that we are speaking about enforcement. We must focus our activity and use police time effectively. If we do not focus in the way set out in the Bill, we will spread our resources to thinly and have significantly less effect as a result.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will understand that the Conservative amendments are neither valuable nor important. We must keep focusing on crack cocaine, which is seriously destructive—for the people who take it, for their families, and for the communities in which they live. We must rid our communities of that scourge.

Julian Brazier: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) in urging the Government to accept the Conservative amendments. As he said, they would amend closure notices and orders in two principal ways, by separating drug taking from associated nuisance when notices and orders are made, and by extending the drug categories involved, so that drugs in classes B and C were also covered, as well as those in class A.
	I hope that the House will excuse me if I draw on constituency cases of mine. I do not intend to speak for long. A case that is current in my constituency involves a young lady who has some mental difficulties. Her boyfriend, an extremely violent and unpleasant drug taker, moved in with her. After suffering sustained domestic violence, she fled the premises. She now lives in another town.
	The young man continued to terrorise the neighbours, one of whom was a young male tenant in a neighbouring property. He had learning difficulties, but was nevertheless managing to look after his property. My constituent's former boyfriend remained heavily involved in activities with a variety of drugs.
	The story is close to having a happy ending. The council and the police were able to take joint action, under existing legislation. However, the House should imagine what would have happened if the case that I have described were different in one of two possible ways. First, if the man had married the young lady before he began to beat her up—or at least had entered a long-term arrangement with her to the point that he shared tenancy of the property with her—the process of evicting him would have been much more complicated. In either case, he would have been a fully legal tenant, with all that that implies in connection with tenure. We shall discuss the question of tenure later.
	The second possibility has to do with the extremely brave ladies who lived in the street. They came to see me at my surgery, and caused me to take action in the matter. They were faced with the threats of violence from the man at the centre of this case, but were willing to go public about what was happening. It is fortunate that the man involved was acting on his own. Had he been part of a gang that was terrorising the neighbourhood, the situation would have been very different when the matter went to court.
	I shall explain why amendment No. 63, and the three or four associated amendments, are necessary. Although it is straightforward to show in a magistrates court that a property is being used for drug taking—all sorts of forensic evidence is usually available in such cases—it is by no means as straightforward to show that a property is a source of public nuisance. If people in the same street are too frightened to testify, how can magistrates establish that a property is the focus of a public nuisance? There is no doubt that the property to which I have referred was such a focus.
	If the man whom I have described had been a legitimate tenant in the property, and not merely lived for a few months with the unfortunate woman who suffered violence at his hands, how could any court—magistrates court or Crown court—reasonably establish that the house was a centre for public nuisance? That is why it is important that the public nuisance test should be separate from the test of drug taking; if memory serves, that point was originally raised by Labour Members on Second Reading. Amendment No. 63 and its consequential provisions are essential if the Bill is to strengthen the police's armoury, as Members on both sides of the House want.

Dari Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the scale of the problem that we are discussing? I suggest that he moves to Teesside where the number of crack houses is growing exponentially. We do not have just one such house but many hundreds of them. We are talking about the effectiveness of police operations in dealing with a problem of that scale. Will the hon. Gentleman bear that in mind as he addresses the issue? Adding class B and C drugs to the clause, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would undermine effective police operation.

Julian Brazier: I hear what the hon. Lady says. I was just about to refer to the amendments on the extension of the powers to classes B and C. Before I do so, I hope that she will acknowledge that nothing that she said in either her speech or her intervention goes against the proposals in amendment No. 63 and their consequentials; they have nothing to do with extending the provisions to classes B and C. It is unfortunate that two sets of our amendments were grouped together as they have different purposes.
	Amendment No. 63 deals with removing the requirement to show that a crack house is also a public nuisance. The hon. Lady's Labour colleagues were the first to object to that additional requirement. The amendment would insert the word "or" in place of "and" in the relevant provisions. It is obviously much easier to prove that somewhere is a crack house than that it is a public nuisance, because witnesses are not required.
	The hon. Lady referred to the scale of the problem. The police are never forced to pursue any particular case. Policing priorities remain those set down by the chief constable, as they have been for many, many years. Our proposals would offer the police the opportunity—if they want to take it—to deal with houses that have become notorious. In every city in the country, including Canterbury and Whitstable in my constituency, we know of houses that are regularly used for class B and C drug taking. There are all-night parties and it is difficult for people in the neighbourhood to give their children an ordinary upbringing.
	Nobody is forcing the police to pursue such cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath pointed out that one house that is on the way down can set the tone for a whole street and we can learn from the policing successes in New York in that regard. The Kent police force, whose chief constable, Sir David Phillips, is in his last week of tenure, is especially good and has achieved some of the largest crime reductions in the country. In Thanet, a neighbouring constituency to mine, the burglary rate is only 10 per cent. of what it was in the first week of Sir David's tenure. That is a remarkable record. If the Kent police were given the opportunity to use the legislation in respect of class B and C drugs as well as class A drugs, from time to time they would do so, to make an example of people and to prevent areas going to the bad before the problem got out of hand.
	I promised that my speech would be brief. We have a ridiculously short time in which to discuss a great deal of material. I urge the House to support our amendments and to understand the differences between them. The first set of provisions should be uncontentious, as they were initially raised from the Labour Benches in Committee.

Caroline Flint: I am delighted to be taking part in the debate on this excellent Bill. I thank all the colleagues with whom I served on the Standing Committee. One of my first jobs on taking office was to request a document setting out everything that I had said in Committee. I am pleased to note that I said nothing then that I would not be prepared to say today.
	I welcome the Minister for Housing and Planning, as he will be dealing with parts of the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who, in Committee, had to put up with quite a lot from me and others, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) who was sometimes worried that every time he left the Room the Labour ranks were mutinying behind his back.
	What was positive in Committee was that we had extensive time to discuss and explore a range of issues. Sometimes, we challenged the Minister and on many occasions my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East was a credit to his job, providing the reassurances that we needed. That was good.
	I thank the Opposition for raising issues in Committee, as they have done today. Their concerns gave rise to considerable discussion in Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East agreed to consider their arguments on Report. As a member of the Committee and in the short time that I have been a Minister, I, too, have reflected on what was said and the issues that were raised about premises used for drug taking. We take the problems seriously and have held interdepartmental and external consultations on them with drug organisations and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
	We also continue to receive representations from Back Benchers. The problems of antisocial behaviour show the importance of the links between constituencies and MPs. Few other subjects so reflect the strong role that MPs play in representing the views of their community, in differing communities throughout the country.
	The power in this part of the Bill was devised to deal with a specific problem that police and housing providers asked us to address: the closure of properties where drugs such as crack and heroin are used and sold, and where intense nuisance is also found. It is to be used only when all other methods of tackling the problem have been exhausted, or would take too long, unnecessarily prolonging damage to communities as a result. Such powers are not to be used lightly. They are severe.
	Amendments Nos. 62, 65 and 69 would expand that power to cover class B and C drugs. As press coverage has shown, we have given that proposal active consideration and we held external consultations, following the Committee stage. Nevertheless, after great thought, we decided that we should continue to focus the power exclusively on class A drugs—a point made particularly well by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). In the update of the national drugs strategy, we clearly stated our intention of focusing action on drugs in that way, which was widely welcomed. Class A drugs cause the greatest harm and are associated with serious nuisance, by which I mean violent nuisance. In deciding to reject the amendment, we remain true to our intention to reflect the actual harm caused by the sale and use of those drugs.
	We have decided, therefore, that the creation of a new power to act against drugs other than class A controlled drugs would largely be a matter of presentation, rather than the creation of an appropriate power to control an actual problem. The Government intend to reclassify cannabis, as has already been mentioned, from a class B to a class C drug. That reflects the harm that it causes while making the drug classification system more credible to the public. However, that does not mean that we advocate cannabis use. The Government's policy is to concentrate on class A drugs and to restrict the power to close premises to those where such drugs are sold and used. However—

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I warmly congratulate her on her appointment.
	Given the importance of achieving maximum impact for minimum effort within a framework of inevitably limited resources, does the hon. Lady concede—there would be no shame in her doing so—that in rejecting the amendments she is at least partly motivated by the consideration that there is a limit on the amount of money available and the amount of police time that can reasonably be expected to be committed?

Caroline Flint: That reflects the priorities, the resources and the maximum impact on communities, and the reality is that crack houses, as they are referred to, have an enormous impact on communities. In crack houses where class A drugs are used, class B and C drugs may often be used as well.

Graham Allen: I support what my hon. Friend says. Those powers will be greatly welcomed by tenants' associations and others in my constituency who suffer from what goes on in such one-off drug dealing places. We do not, however, want extensive powers to be granted that will not then be used by the police, which is why focusing on and prioritising class A is absolutely right.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. This is about being effective and using smarter policing to tackle the damage that drugs cause in our communities.
	Although the Government's policy is to concentrate on class A drugs and to restrict the proposed powers to the way that those drugs are sold and used, we will continue to ensure that the police act against those who sell or produce cannabis. The fact that the Criminal Justice Bill, which is being considered in the House, will extend the penalties for dealing in cannabis to 14 years is very important, and the Home Secretary and I support that change. As I have said before, people who use or sell cannabis as well as crack in such houses will be acted against, using those powers.

Julian Brazier: I also congratulate the Minister on her welcome appointment. She uses the word "effective". Surely the central issue about effectiveness and, indeed, using resources is that it is much easier to prove that a place is a crack house than to prove that it is a public nuisance. Will she now address amendment No. 63?

Caroline Flint: I will deal with amendment No. 63 shortly, and I hope that my answer will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
	A further reason for our decision was revealed in the external consultation. The feeling was that such expansion to class B and C drugs would have a negative impact on our colleagues who work with drug users in the treatment and homeless sector. It is not desirable to repeat the fear caused in that sector by the amendment of section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and further destabilise the sector. The risk would be that such agencies would avoid housing all drug users, which would create its own problems if those people were homeless, on the street and open to temptation and crime. That could lead to greater homelessness and harm to those individuals and society.
	Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 67 would create a new power that could be applied to any circumstance of serious nuisance. As drafted, the new power, which is severe, is designed to apply to a specific situation of acute harm, where drugs are sold from buildings and where serious nuisance arises that needs to be dealt with quickly. In seeking to amend the Bill in that way, the Opposition want to create a blanket severe power that could be used in all situations of serious nuisance. It is our view that the power is appropriate only to the particular, acute circumstances of the sale of illegal drugs from crack houses, not to other types of serious nuisance where related criminality is not as severe.
	Those forms of nuisance should be controlled through other powers, not least the existing powers available to social landlords to evict tenants, which are strengthened in part 2. A whole host of other powers are therefore available to deal with that type of nuisance, which reflects the wish of hon. Members in Committee to ensure that the existing and new powers are used appropriately and to good effect.
	Amendments Nos. 66 and 68 attempt to decouple serious nuisance from the drug-related behaviour involved. As a result, any home where someone was simply smoking crack or another class A drug, rather than causing nuisance, could be closed and the person made homeless. That would create a much more draconian response to the personal use of illegal drugs than is currently contained in the criminal law. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, people would only receive fines for personal possession of drugs, but those amendments could cause them to lose their homes. That is undesirable.
	Although drug use is not to be condoned, the solution is not to throw people on to the streets, where their habit would almost certainly get worse and the harm they cause to society would be magnified. The power must be applicable only to those circumstances where the use, production or sale of drugs is associated with serious nuisance. Those amendments would undermine the system of penalties set up and agreed in the 1971 Act.
	Amendment No. 92—tabled by those on the Liberal Front Bench, represented by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke)—reflects a concern, which was raised in Committee, as she rightly said, that authorised persons should have the same protection as the police against damages claims arising from the exercise of their powers. As she said, clarification was sought on that issue. Without the partial exemption from liability in clause 9, the police might be subject to large claims for damages arising from closure by those connected with running crack houses.
	The functions of authorised persons are limited to assisting in physically securing the building and carrying out emergency repairs and maintenance under clause 3. The job of carpenter was mentioned in Committee and if carpenters or other trades people are involved in assisting the police—for example, in knocking down a door under the direct orders and supervision of a constable—they are likely to be regarded as being within the exemption. If they are permitted to enter the property alone at a later date to carry out repairs, but carry out those non-police functions negligently, we see no reason why the ordinary law of negligence should not apply to them.
	Although the safety of trades people is not addressed in the Liberal Democrat amendment, I wish to say that, when boarding up premises, they will be accompanied by the police, who will offer protection and secure the property for their safety, so that they can carry out the work that they are asked to do. That cover could also be organised for any subsequent visit for further maintenance.
	As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), Government amendment No. 30 is acceptable. It deals with a technical matter and allows the definition of the owner of premises to include the freeholder and the leaseholder, where the property is subject to a lease of three years or more. Our intention to introduce such an amendment was signalled in Committee, and it is based on a culture of listening to hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as to people outside.
	This is a crucial issue for the communities that we represent—it is about smarter policing and taking precautions—so I request that the hon. Gentleman withdraw the amendment and that the House accept Government amendment No. 30.

Nick Hawkins: I shall be very brief. Of course, I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has had to say, but I hope that she will continue to keep such matters under review. She has rightly paid tribute to the work of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who is now the Government deputy Chief Whip. I echo her congratulations to him on his promotion and her recognition of his very important work in Committee. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee benefited from his constructive approach.
	On this group of amendments, however, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to what her hon. Friend said when he was the Minister. On 6 May, he drew attention to the fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has just done, that the idea of the decoupling amendments that we moved in Committee—we have proposed similar ones again today—came from the Government's Back Benchers, particularly the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). The proposal has not just come from Opposition Members; it is something on which the Minister's hon. Friends agree with us. We feel that, even though the police will not always use such powers, they will introduce an extra element of flexibility, so that where the police wanted to use them, they would have the chance to do so.
	In her response, the Minister drew attention to the fact that sometimes premises are used for the consumption of more than one drug. I therefore ask her to bear in mind the point raised once again by my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that serious nuisances can exist, even if they do not involve class A drugs, of the same kind that the then Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East talked about:
	"We know what they are"—
	meaning the types of nuisances—
	"comings and goings 24 hours a day, soliciting in the area, paraphernalia and noise."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 6 May 2003; c. 32.]
	That is precisely why we say that all of those nuisances can arise even if class A drugs are not involved. We entirely accept what the Minister says about crack houses posing a particular problem, and no doubt these powers would mainly be used to deal with the scourge of crack houses to which the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) has also referred, and which we recognise. I hope it will be borne in mind, however, as this Bill progresses to another place, that we continue to believe that it would be wise for these powers to be decoupled, and to have the flexibility, when appropriate—perhaps only in rare cases—to cover class B and class C drugs, too. At this stage, however, I do not seek to pursue the matter. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 8, line 27, in clause 11, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
	'( ) A person is the owner of premises if either of the following paragraphs applies to him—
	(a) he is a person (other than a mortgagee not in possession) who is for the time being entitled to dispose of the fee simple in the premises, whether in possession or in reversion;
	(b) he is a person who holds or is entitled to the rents and profits of the premises under a lease which (when granted) was for a term of not less than three years.'.—[Keith Hill.]

Clause 13
	 — 
	Injunctions Against Anti-Social Behaviour on Application of Certain Social Landlords

Keith Hill: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 10, line 28, leave out 'immoral and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 11 and 21 to 23.

Keith Hill: I also hope to be brief in dealing with this small group of amendments. I want to begin, however, by thanking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for her kind words of welcome, and to reciprocate by congratulating her on her well-merited appointment. It is also a pleasure to be working with my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety. I congratulate her on her promotion, too. They are two glittering stars in the firmament of the parliamentary Labour party.
	Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 21 and 22 deal with the question of immorality. Specifically, it is proposed that the immoral use of premises, as distinct from unlawful use of premises, should be removed as a ground for obtaining an injunction or a demotion. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for bringing this to the Government's attention in Committee. I am entirely in agreement with him that there is no necessary link between immorality and either antisocial behaviour or illegality, and it is misleading to imply one. Immorality per se is irrelevant to what the Bill seeks to achieve.
	We do not think that it is appropriate that injunctions or demotion orders intended to prevent antisocial behaviour should be used to control the use of premises where no illegal activity is taking place and no nuisance is being caused. It is difficult to see what is antisocial in that situation. If illegality or nuisance begins, an injunction under clause 13 or a demotion order under clause 14 can be obtained without the need for any judgments of morality. Amendment No. 23 is a technical amendment to provide consistency in the way that the Bill deals with matters of Welsh devolution. We are deleting subsection (2) of clause 17 to bring it into line with clause 55.

James Paice: I welcome the new Minister for Housing and Planning. I was remiss in not referring to him in my earlier remarks, and he rightly chided me privately for that. I congratulate him on his promotion—I suppose that that is what it is—and certainly on his new position in the Government. Whether he has as much power as he had as Deputy Chief Whip I shall leave for others to judge. It is ironic, of course, that the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), has gone to the job that the new Minister for Housing and Planning vacated.

John Bercow: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the Minister took a sensible approach to the Government's new clauses and amendments. Will he agree, however, that after a period of Trappist silence from the new Minister, which was no doubt put to good effect on behalf of the Government machine, it is extremely welcome that we shall once again hear his mellifluous tones and his gladiatorial approach to political debate?

James Paice: I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his immense command of vocabulary, has encapsulated the views of many of us. I smile inwardly at the presence on the Front Bench of the new Minister for Housing and Planning, together with the new Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety, whom I assume is pleased that her colleague has not been put in charge of cycling, bearing in mind a faux pas that he made previously in the House, which was probably the cause of the period of Trappist silence to which he was consigned. Clearly, however, he has paid his penance.
	I am grateful to the Minister for Housing and Planning for his kind words about the amendments, which, as he said, arise from almost identical amendments that I moved in Committee. I remind hon. Members of the words used in Committee by the then Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), when he spoke to my amendments. He said:
	"Currently, I am not persuaded by my own briefing"—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 13 May 2003; c. 229.]
	There were several occasions on which he and the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East made similar statements. The result of the openness and honesty displayed by those Ministers is that several welcome amendments and new clauses, such as those in this group, have been tabled.
	I shall not reprise the arguments that the Minister for Housing and Planning made—I made them at slightly more length in Committee. It is wrong to confuse antisocial behaviour with immorality. Immorality is based on a personal judgment and the concept moves with the times. We know from other aspects of legislation that courts have great difficulty defining immorality, so we do not want to bestow that problem on the Bill. The Bill is all about addressing nuisance and annoyance, which are clearly defined in law, so I am grateful that the Government have recognised that those concepts should not be confused with the wholly different concept of immorality.
	We want to discuss other issues before the first knife falls, so I shall leave my remarks at that, except to repeat my welcome and obvious support for the Government amendments.

Graham Allen: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to the Front Bench and I ask him to bear one thing in mind. I am sure that it is a common phenomenon for hon. Members of all parties to talk to people on council estates who say, "You know, the old rent book used to be very clear. The old rent man used to come round and tell us exactly the duties that we had and correct us when the garden was untidy." In a way, the drift of policy to protect private tenants especially, has gone a little too far the other way.
	I say with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend—I hope that he will consider this although not necessarily react to it at the Dispatch Box—that many councils, including mine, would prefer to have the ability to use a tighter tenancy agreement. In order to achieve that, the Government must stand behind councils rather than continuing what is perhaps a trend of the past 30 years of always looking after the individual rights of a specific tenant. Sadly, people who use their rights are often those who abuse the rights of everyone else in the community. I am not saying that we need to return to a pre-Rachmanite regime, but as the Bill moves to the other place, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of councils being able to toughen up their tenancy agreements so that they may take speedy action against some of the families that plague all our constituents?

Matthew Green: I would add my congratulations to the Minister for Housing and Planning, but I did so during Question Time last week. He is unfortunate to be promoted into his job only to discover that he is midway through two Bills, or even three. Even being midway through one Bill would be unfortunate.
	I add Liberal Democrat support to the amendments—we have added our names to them—for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the Minister. We support the removal of the word "immoral". It was inappropriate and had nothing at all to do with a Bill on antisocial behaviour. I think that the word slipped in because such wording has been used in Bills for several years and there is a tendency to keep rolling on with the same set of words. It is just as well that the problem has been brought to book and I hope that that will prevent the wording from being rolled out in future Bills.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendment made: No. 11, in page 10, line 31, leave out 'immoral or'.—[Keith Hill.]

Keith Hill: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 11, line 4, at end insert—
	'153D Injunction against breach of tenancy agreement
	(1) This section applies if a relevant landlord applies for an injunction against a tenant in respect of the breach or anticipated breach of a tenancy agreement on the grounds that the tenant—
	(a) is engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person, or
	(b) is allowing, inciting or encouraging any other person to engage or threaten to engage in such conduct.
	(2) The court may proceed under subsection (3) or (4) if it is satisfied—
	(a) that the conduct includes the use or threatened use of violence, or
	(b) that there is a significant risk of harm to any person.
	(3) The court may include in the injunction a provision prohibiting the person in respect of whom it is granted from entering or being in—
	(a) any premises specified in the injunction;
	(b) any area specified in the injunction.
	(4) The court may attach a power of arrest to any provision of the injunction.
	(5) Tenancy agreement includes any agreement for the occupation of residential accommodation owned or managed by a relevant landlord.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 13 to 20.
	Amendment No. 75, in page 45, line 39, schedule 1, leave out from 'possession' to end of line 40 and insert
	'if it is satisfied
	(a) that conduct under section 153A or 153B of the Housing Act 1996 has taken place since the making of the demotion order and
	(b) that the procedure under sections 143E and 143F has been followed.
	Amendment No. 61, in page 46, line 9, schedule 1, at end insert—
	'including evidence of further conduct under section 153A or section 153B of the Housing Act 1996 which has taken place since the making of the demotion order.'.

Keith Hill: I again offer my thanks to colleagues on both sides of the House who have given me such a warm welcome. It is good to be back. I hope that we will proceed in the same sweet harmonies that prevailed on earlier Government amendments, but that may not be the case. However, I shall at least endeavour to persuade the House of the merits of these amendments.
	Clause 13 provides social landlords with powers to apply for injunctions to prevent anyone acting antisocially towards their tenants or other residents, staff or anyone lawfully in the locality of their housing accommodation. They are strong powers and may be used against any person including private tenants and owner-occupiers. That includes former tenants who have exercised the right to buy.

Laura Moffatt: Hear, hear.

Keith Hill: I agree with that expression of support. That aspect of the Bill has not yet received the attention it merits and will receive a warm welcome in council estates up and down the land.
	The measures combat antisocial behaviour that is related to the management of the social landlord's stock. They do not give social landlords a wider role to protect any person from antisocial behaviour by any person in any circumstance. There has to be at least an indirect link with the landlord's management of its housing accommodation, although there does not have to be a link with any one particular premises as required by section 152 of the Housing Act 1996.
	However, a landlord might reasonably want to take action against one of its tenants who had acted antisocially in a wider range of circumstances than if the antisocial behaviour were committed by a non-tenant. It is important that rights and responsibilities are negotiated between the landlord and tenant. Amendment No. 12 allows them to do that. To revert to the observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), he will find in the provisions the opportunity to strengthen tenancy agreements. The Government desire that to be a general phenomenon. It only addresses part of the argument that he presented, but at least it is a part. I shall bear in mind his other observations.
	By tenancy agreement I mean any agreement for the occupation of residential accommodation owned or managed by the landlord including, for example, long leases acquired under the right-to-buy legislation. The amendment strengthens the enforceability of such agreements in relation to antisocial behaviour. Many social landlords include specific clauses in their tenancy agreements on antisocial behaviour. Those may go beyond what is covered in clause 13. For example, local authority tenancies may forbid tenants from harassing any member of council staff, in any location, regardless of whether they are employed in connection with the management of its stock.
	Social landlords can already obtain an injunction to prohibit a breach or anticipated breach of a tenancy agreement. The amendment defines tenancy agreement more widely and allows a power of arrest or exclusion to be attached to an injunction if there is actual or threatened antisocial behaviour and the use or threat of violence, or the risk of significant harm to any person. That includes circumstances in which the tenant is allowing, inciting or encouraging antisocial behaviour by someone else. I repeat that these are strong powers and they will not be granted lightly by the courts, but where they are appropriate and necessary, they will significantly enhance the protection of the community.

Graham Allen: I very much welcome the powers and know that they will be well received in constituencies up and down the land. It is a great credit to the Government that they have introduced them.
	The powers allow an injunction to be made and further prosecution if that is breached. One point that I was making to my hon. Friend the Minister was that it would be useful to consider the automaticity—the automatic nature—of a breach of a tenancy agreement so that consequences follow immediately rather than waiting for a document or dossier to be built up that can be taken to court. That would help to avoid the intimidation of witnesses. If it is there in black and white on the tenancy agreement, but someone breaks that agreement, certain things might follow automatically. The provision does not allow for that, but I urge my hon. Friend to see whether the good work in the clause can be taken a stage further.

Keith Hill: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who has obviously devoted a great deal of thought to these matters. I am interested in the concept of a rolling programme in relation to tenancy agreements. My hon. Friend has advanced a serious proposition, and the Government will give it careful consideration.
	Government amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 16 to 20 are necessary consequential amendments, which give effect to new section 153D of the Housing Act 1996. Government amendment No. 15 is a technical amendment that clarifies the question of who is regarded as the legal owner of a property. It makes it clear that a social landlord is an owner if their original lease of the accommodation was for longer than three years and not, as currently stated, if the unexpired period of the lease is for longer than three years. I found that a matter of some confusion, so it may be for the benefit of the House if I provide brief clarification. Any person who has a lease of three years or more will be regarded under the Bill as an owner. The owner is the landlord—in other words, the person who can take out an injunction. Someone with a lease of less than three years is identified as a business tenant. I hope that that added clarification is as helpful to the House as it was to me.
	My predecessor, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), to whom I pay tribute to for his excellent work in Committee and in many other areas of government, said in Committee that he would happily look again at the question of whether three years rather than one year was the correct length of time. I have considered that, and am satisfied that three years is the correct length. Even if a social landlord is not classified as the owner of a particular property, they will still be the manager, and hence able to use the powers in clause 13.
	I turn to amendments Nos. 61 and 75, which were tabled by the Opposition and have the aim of undermining the purpose of the tenancy demotion procedure. They would increase demoted tenants' security of tenure, and would remove the benefits of speed and landlord control of the process, which the demotion procedure is intended to provide. They seek to limit the circumstances in which a landlord may seek to end a demoted tenancy to cases where there is evidence of antisocial behaviour after the order was granted. Eviction from a demoted tenancy is designed to be swifter and easier than eviction from secure tenancies, and is modelled on the procedure for local authority introductory tenancies that was recently approved by the courts as being compliant with the European convention on human rights.
	By the time a tenant has been demoted, the landlord and the tenant have both had their day in court. Evidence has been provided, and witnesses have attended. The amendments would effectively require another full-scale court hearing. There would be costs to the landlord and delays for those who are suffering from the antisocial behaviour, and it may not be easy to persuade witnesses to come back a second time. The demotion order allows landlords to give tenants one last chance, but it also allows them to take swift action if the antisocial behaviour is not addressed. The demotion order will give the tenant and landlord the opportunity for rehabilitation work. However, if that last chance fails, landlords should not be required to justify their own actions again at a further court hearing.

Matthew Green: The Minister spoke about what will happen if that sanction fails, but there is nothing in the Bill about failure after a demoted tenancy is granted. If someone is given a demoted tenancy, the landlord can move for repossession at any point without giving any reasons whatever. That is the problem with the Bill.

Keith Hill: That is not the case. The procedure for ending a demoted tenancy is based, as I said, on the procedure for ending an introductory tenancy. The decision is taken by the landlord, following a process that is already statutory, and is followed by a possession order granted by the court. The tenant will have the right to an internal review of the landlord's decision. The arrangements for the termination of a demoted tenancy will mirror the existing arrangements for the termination of introductory tenancies.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I remind him that the landlord will inform the tenant of his intention to terminate the tenancy. The tenant will have the right to appear before a review panel, which it is intended should include a senior council officer not involved in the initial demotion procedure. Ultimately, the tenant will have the right to take the proposed eviction to judicial review, but at the possession hearing, the court will consider only whether the appropriate procedure has been followed, not the facts upon which the landlord's decision was based or the merits of the case. Without those reassurances, the demotion order would be a less attractive procedure and it would encourage more landlords to apply for a possession order at the first opportunity.

Graham Allen: To put the matter in perspective, we are not speaking of random searches of council estates and picking on people. People who have got to this stage have probably been highly disruptive, disturbed the neighbourhood and made their neighbours' life hell. They have already had at least one chance. The problem is not that the process is too fast, but that it may be too protracted. Witnesses who have come forward, often at great expense, bolstered by housing officers, police officers and so on, may be asked to come to court two or three times, have their windows put in, have acid poured on their car and so on. We have lived with such problems, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is moving swiftly to tackle them.

Keith Hill: It is beginning to sound like a love-in between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North. I entirely agree with his observations, which are as perceptive as ever. As he says, we have all been there, as constituency Members of Parliament. In my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament, the landlord is usually extremely reluctant to move to the measures that I described.
	Of course, the landlord is aware of the implications of the ending of any form of tenancy and the implications for the family, but the procedure will prevent precipitate action to move towards eviction. It will offer—I reiterate that in my experience this is the desire of most housing managers—the opportunity for a process of rehabilitation to try to bring the individuals concerned back into civic society. That is the name of the game. We need to restore a sense of civic society, and on occasion we must do that by sanction.
	These are reasonable proposals. They meet the wishes expressed overwhelmingly by the social landlord sector in consultation. The Government have no hesitation in moving amendments Nos. 12 to 20 and in urging Opposition Members to withdraw amendments Nos. 75 and 61.

James Paice: I shall briefly refer to the Government amendments, before dealing with the two that we tabled, to which the Minister devoted some time. Government amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 and the consequential amendments, as the hon. Gentleman said, are draconian, but they are right and wholly supportable. It is necessary to provide for those injunctions. I will not detain the House further on those, except to reiterate our support.
	I welcome Government amendment No. 15, because as the Minister said, it clarifies who is a landlord. The hon. Gentleman referred to the undertaking given by the now Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), to go away and consider the points that I made in Committee concerning the three-year period. The question that I raised was not whether that period was right or wrong; it had much more to do with the issue with which the amendment deals—whether there were three years still to run. By making it clear that the period was initially three years and that there is no such period still to run, which is what the Bill currently says, the Minister has dealt with the issue. I welcome the amendment, which is obviously another example of the success of my powers of persuasion, for which I shall take credit.
	On amendments Nos. 75 and 61, in the spirit of good will, I say to the Minister that it is a calumny to suggest that the Opposition are trying to undermine the legislation. He is absolutely right to say that antisocial behaviour is a major problem in respect of tenants of social landlords. All of us have encountered that problem to a greater or lesser extent in our constituencies. The hon. Gentleman is also right that action needs to be taken, and there is no difference between my party and the Government on that need, so we do not intend or seek to undermine the Bill.
	The point of the amendments is as follows. As the Bill is currently drafted, and as the Minister obviously wishes to maintain it, once a demotion order is achieved, a landlord will be able to serve proceedings for possession. He will have to give his reasons, and the Minister rightly said—this is set out in the Bill—that the tenant can seek a review. However, he went on to speak about review panels, independence and so on, none of which feature in the Bill. We must make a judgment on the basis of what the Bill contains. As I read it, in the hands of a landlord who wishes to be unscrupulous, a demotion order could effectively be an eviction order, and there is virtually nothing to prevent a landlord from moving from a demotion order straight to eviction.
	All that we are seeking to achieve in the amendments is to provide the second chance to which the Minister and indeed the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) referred, and which we endorse. When a tenant of a social landlord allows or commits antisocial behaviour, they should be hit with a hard sanction, and we accept that demotion orders are a tough sanction. However, they should be given a chance to learn as a result of the action that is taken and not commit such behaviour again, and it appears that the Bill does not currently provide that second chance. All that we are seeking is to ensure that if the landlord wishes to go for possession, he must do so because the tenant has taken no notice of the initial sanction that the demotion order represents.
	That is the simple gist of our amendments and the reason why we have tabled them. I do not want to undermine the Bill and I certainly want landlords to be able to take action against tenants who continue to allow or commit unsocial behaviour. However, I do not want to give free licence to the recognised chance of unscrupulous social landlords using the provisions in a way that neither the Minister nor I wish them to be used.

Matthew Green: I shall try to be brief.
	The Liberal Democrats reluctantly accept that the Government were right to table Government amendment No. 12 and the other Government amendments, but I should like to reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Under the Bill as it is currently framed, a couple with an unruly teenage son who has been behaving antisocially may end up with a demoted tenancy, but if the son leaves home and the couple get into rent arrears because one of them has lost a job or for some other reason, they can be fast-tracked for eviction under the demoted tenancy because of those arrears, despite the fact that the problem in respect of which they were given the demoted tenancy has gone completely.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was right to make that point, which we have also tried to raise, although I accept it has been made in the Conservative amendments. I hope that the Minister will address the issue and ensure that when somebody is evicted after a demoted tenancy has been issued, it is for the same reason in respect of which they were given the demoted tenancy in the first place.

Keith Hill: Let me say to the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that I understand the seriousness of the points that they make. I shall certainly bear in mind the observation made by the hon. Member for Ludlow about the consistency of the basis of a termination of a demoted tenancy.
	Although I understand the concerns about the precipitate action of unscrupulous landlords against tenants, broadly speaking, in my experience, unscrupulous landlords are more often to be found in the private sector than in the social housing sector, but that is a matter for other legislation. The effect of the amendments would be to take cases back to the courts, with all the disadvantages in terms of witnesses, delay and cost implications for the local authority.
	I hope that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will take it from me that the Government intend that the rules governing the termination of demoted tenancies should be those that apply to the termination of introductory tenancies. The regulations will mirror those provisions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment and that the House will support the Government's amendments.
	Amendment agreed to.
	It being one and three quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day.]
	Amendments made: No. 13, in page 11, line 6, leave out '153C' and insert '153D'.
	No. 14, in page 11, line 27, leave out from 'landlord' to end of line 29 and insert
	'for the purposes of section 153D'.
	No. 15, in page 11, line 40, leave out from 'lease' to end of line 41 and insert
	'which (when granted) was for a term of not less than three years'.
	No. 16, in page 12, line 7, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153D(4)'.
	No. 17, in page 12, line 12, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153D(4)'.
	No. 18, in page 12, line 14, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153D(4)'.
	No. 19, in page 12, line 17, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153D(4)'.
	No. 20, in page 12, line 19, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153D(4)'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 14
	 — 
	Security of Tenure: Anti-Social Behaviour

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 13, line 17, leave out 'immoral or'.
	No. 22, in page 14, line 18, leave out 'immoral or'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 17
	 — 
	Devolution: Wales

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 16, line 24, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 18
	 — 
	Parenting Contracts in Cases of Exclusion From School or Truancy

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 16, line 32, leave out from 'permanently' to end of line 34.
	No. 41, in page 17, line 8, after 'attend' and insert 'a'.
	No. 42, in page 17, line 8, leave out 'sessions' and insert 'programme'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 19
	 — 
	Parenting Orders in Cases of Exclusion from School

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 17, line 37, leave out 'sessions' and insert 'programme'.
	No. 44, in page 17, line 42, at end insert—
	'(6) A counselling or guidance programme which a parent is required to attend by virtue of subsection (4)(b) may be or include a residential course but only if the court is satisfied that the following two conditions are fulfilled.
	(7) The first condition is that the attendance of the parent at a residential course is likely to be more effective than his attendance at a nonresidential course in improving the behaviour of the pupil.
	(8) The second condition is that any interference with family life which is likely to result from the attendance of the parent at a residential course is proportionate in all the circumstances.'—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 20
	 — 
	Parenting Orders: Supplemental

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 18, line 16, leave out from 'make' to end of line 18 and insert
	'provision as to how the costs associated with the requirements of parenting orders under section 19 (including the costs of providing counselling or guidance programmes) are to be borne'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 23
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 22, leave out line 18.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 24
	 — 
	Parenting Contracts in Respect of Criminal Conduct and Anti-Social Behaviour

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 22, line 38, after 'attend' insert 'a'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 25
	 — 
	Parenting Orders In Respect Of Crimnal Conduct And Anti-Social Behaviour

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 23, line 25, at end insert—
	'(6) A counselling or guidance programme which a parent is required to attend by virtue of subsection (4)(b) may be or include a residential course but only if the court is satisfied that the following two conditions are fulfilled.
	(7) The first condition is that the attendance of the parent at a residential course is likely to be more effective than his attendance at a nonresidential course in preventing the child or young person from engaging in further criminal conduct or further antisocial behaviour.
	(8) The second condition is that any interference with family life which is likely to result from the attendance of the parent at a residential course is proportionate in all the circumstances.'—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 28
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 24, leave out line 22.
	No. 37, in page 24, line 25, at end insert—
	'(2) In section 38(4) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) (meaning of "youth justice services") after paragraph (e) insert—
	"(ee) the performance by youth offending teams and members of youth offending teams of functions under sections 24 to 26 of the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003,".'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	New Clause 8—Parenting Orders under the 1998 Act—
	'(1) Section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsections (4) and (5) substitute—
	"(4) A parenting order is an order which requires the parent—
	(a) to comply, for a period not exceeding twelve months, with such requirements as are specified in the order, and
	(b) subject to subsection (5) below, to attend, for a concurrent period not exceeding three months, such counselling or guidance programme as may be specified in directions given by the responsible officer.
	(5) A parenting order may, but need not, include such a requirement as is mentioned in subsection (4)(b) above in any case where a parenting order under this section or any other enactment has been made in respect of the parent on a previous occasion."
	(3) After subsection (7) insert—
	"(7A) A counselling or guidance programme which a parent is required to attend by virtue of subsection (4)(b) above may be or include a residential course but only if the court is satisfied—
	(a) that the attendance of the parent at a residential course is likely to be more effective than his attendance at a nonresidential course in preventing any such repetition or, as the case may be, the commission of any such further offence, and
	(b) that any interference with family life which is likely to result from the attendance of the parent at a residential course is proportionate in all the circumstances.".'.
	—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second Times, and added to the Bill.

Clause 29
	 — 
	Dispersal of Groups and Removal of Persons Under 16 to Their Place of Residence

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 24, line 28, leave out Clause 29.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 53, in page 24, leave out lines 35 to 37.
	Amendment No. 54, in page 24, line 38, leave out subsection (2).
	Amendment No. 55, in page 25, line 6, leave out first 'relevant' and insert 'immediate'.
	Amendment No. 58, in page 25, line 6, leave out second 'relevant' and insert 'immediate'.
	Government amendment No. 38.
	Amendment No. 56, in page 25, line 10, leave out first 'relevant' and insert 'immediate'.
	Amendment No. 57, in page 25, line 10, leave out second 'relevant' and insert 'immediate'.
	Government amendment No. 39.
	Amendment No. 59, in page 25, line 25, leave out 'in the relevant locality'.
	Amendment No. 76, in page 25, line 31, leave out
	'if removed to that place'
	and insert
	'if that person remained in that place to which he was removed to'.
	Amendment No. 60, in page 25, line 36, leave out Clause 30.
	Amendment No. 83, in page 26, line 28, leave out Clause 31.
	Amendment No. 84, in page 27, line 1, leave out Clause 32.
	Amendment No. 85, in page 27, line 25, leave out Clause 33.
	Amendment No. 86, in page 28, line 1, leave out Clause 34.
	Government amendment No. 40.
	Amendment No. 87, in page 28, line 11, leave out Clause 35.

Simon Hughes: As well as amendment No. 82, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, in this selection there is a group of other amendments in our name—amendments Nos. 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87. There is one amendment that is jointly in our name and that of Conservative Front Benchers—amendment No. 60. Amendments Nos. 53 to 59 are Conservative amendments that I will leave to Conservative colleagues to address specifically. There are, by my calculation, three Government amendments in the group—amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40—which are relatively minor amendments to do with locality. The last one is a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 76 is a Conservative amendment that addresses one of the matters that was picked up in the report published by the Joint Committee on Human Rights the other day.
	As Ministers will know, this is a significant part of the Bill for my colleagues and me. Indeed, it is significant by any definition, and was flagged up as such in the report on the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We give thanks to the Committee for its work and for its 13th report, which has helped inform this debate.
	There might be time for three debates in the next hour and a half, and I hope that we do, indeed, have time for all of them. The first deals with clause 29, which is in part 4 of the Bill, under the heading "Dispersal of groups, etc.". Whether, at the end of the day, we have to have the word "etc." in the title is a matter that we can no doubt debate; part 4 deals with the dispersal of groups. The title of clause 29 is fairly categorical in terms of the issue that we are debating: it is "Dispersal of groups and removal of persons under 16 to their place of residence".
	There was some uncertainty on Second Reading but, to be fair to the Government, it is now clear that the measure contains two proposals. One relates to a power to disperse groups of two or more people, who can be of any age, in certain circumstances. A separate power relates to the removal of under-16s. I want to discuss both those powers, and to signal to the House that we have strong reasons for believing that they are unnecessary and inappropriate; that they go far too wide; that they probably break the law; and that they will be positively unhelpful in trying to deal with antisocial behaviour. I should say that there is a point of common agreement in all parts of the House that, when behaviour becomes threatening, intimidating or harassing, and when people of any age intervene in the lives of other people to make their lives a misery, it is unacceptable.
	Like me, the new Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety represents an inner-city seat. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Ludlow (Matthew Green)—who served on the Standing Committee—represent very different seats. One has a large seaside resort with a rural hinterland; the other has a beautiful rural area with a large county town and smaller towns and villages. None of us, however, is immune to the fact that there are people of all ages—although they are generally under 40—who can behave in an antisocial way from time to time.
	There is a question as to what antisocial behaviour is, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights has suggested that we should be careful about how we define it. The Liberal Democrats have a fundamental objection to the way in which the Government have drafted this part of the Bill. In Committee, my hon. Friends sought to persuade the Committee to amend the Bill. Had they been able to do so, our fundamental objections would, to be honest, have gone away, because we should have taken out the great iniquity of the drafting. I hope that I can now persuade the House that, as presently drafted, the Bill goes much too far in two respects.
	I shall deal later with clause 29(6), which relates to the power to remove young people. Clause 29(1) states:
	"This section applies where a relevant officer has reasonable grounds for believing—
	(a) that any members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed"—
	those are the four conditions that a person can be judged to be in—
	"as a result of"—
	the precondition that—
	"the presence or behaviour of groups of two or more persons in public places in any locality in his police area . . . and"—
	there is a second precondition that—
	"(b) that anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality."
	There must, therefore, have been a finding that antisocial behaviour was a "significant and persistent problem".
	That will immediately lead to the difficulty—although it is not the biggest difficulty—of determining what the locality is. Could it, for example, be the whole of the London borough of Southwark, in the case of my constituency, or the whole of the metropolitan borough of Salford, in the case of the Minister's? Could it be one of the places in a borough, such as the Poole part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, or a ward, a council estate or a street? That has not been sorted out. There may be guidelines, but if there had been persistent antisocial behaviour in part of the London borough of Southwark, which I know best, that may be enough for someone to be covered by the second precondition.

Jonathan R Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: Let me make the case, and I shall give way in a second.
	My judgment is—I am being absolutely honest about this—that it is probably possible to find enough antisocial behaviour to get over the first threshold in any constituency in the United Kingdom. Most constituencies contain areas in which there are problems, and if they occur more than once or a few times, they could be said to be persistent. The difficulty comes when there is a trigger that can suddenly have a consequence for a wide area even though the problem has an impact on only a small area.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is making a reasonable point about defining an area, but there should be guidance. Area crime prevention partnerships could identify problem areas. As well as the police, other agencies and individuals that make up those partnerships could define the locality when there is a particular problem in their area, and they could give community constables the power to act.

Simon Hughes: That is true, although we do not have those definitions as yet. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Labour Government introduced, and Parliament legislated for, the power to place curfews over areas designated either by the local authority or by the police. As we know, no such curfew areas have yet been designated, although the powers have been available for some years

Jonathan R Shaw: That is different.

Simon Hughes: It is different, but it is the same concept. Authorities were given the power suddenly to intervene on anyone who came within the designated curfew area. Under this Bill, once the area has been designated, the authorities will be allowed suddenly to act in relation to people in the area. The arguments do not stand on their own: they stand together. The major objection to this provision is that, because of some previous behaviour by some, we will be punishing what may be perfectly respectable behaviour by many. By acting on the situation in the past, when there may have been antisocial behaviour by a few, we may infringe the civil liberties of a large number of people.
	I shall explain why that would be the consequence of the Bill and why the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, may decide that he should not support this provision. Once the location issue has been sorted out, what does the Bill provide? It says that all that is needed is for a relevant officer to have reasonable grounds for believing that any members of the public—it could be a member or two members—have been alarmed or distressed as a result of not just the behaviour but the presence of groups of two or more people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow put the point clearly in Committee. If members of the public have been intimidated, harassed or alarmed as a result of the behaviour of groups of people, action could reasonably follow, but it is not reasonable to provide that when any members of the public may have been alarmed or distressed, however unreasonably, by the presence of two or more people, the authorities can go in.
	4.15 pm
	Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why the provision is completely unacceptable. It means that, if someone who for no good reason does not like people hanging around at the bus stop, gets into a state about people hanging around the park bench or is troubled and anxious—distressed—because a group of people come with their bikes, mountain bikes, motor bikes or scooters and gather at the village pond or at the bottom of the stairwell, that is sufficient—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. It is sufficient that members of the public are distressed or alarmed as a result of the presence of groups of two or more persons. There does not have to be any behaviour at all, let alone antisocial behaviour. They just have to be there.
	My colleagues and I will not sign up to legislation that allows the perception of one person, the views of one person or the reaction of a group of people to determine who shall be on our streets, in our parks or at our bus shelters. The reality is that the provision will most often be used—not necessarily always—by groups of adults who do not like young people hanging around outside somewhere near them. Sometimes they may go further than that. They may use it because of prejudice, because of the hairstyles of a group of people, or because of what they do, or because of their colour—

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: I will in a second but I hope that the hon. Lady and everyone else will put it on the record that it would be unacceptable, in a country that prides itself on civil liberties, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights makes clear, to legislate to prevent people from being present in our public places if their presence alone causes distress to someone else. I hope that she will endorse that.

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, for the provision to apply, not only must people be alarmed and distressed, but antisocial behaviour must be a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality, as designated by a senior police officer? Does he accept that the provision is not about moving on people who are doing nothing wrong but about dealing with areas that are plagued by antisocial behaviour? He wishes to delete the provisions that deal with that issue.

Simon Hughes: I am sorry that the hon. Lady cannot read the Bill well and did not listen to what I said clearly. She must take away her prejudices and address the legislation that the Government have put before the House. I have dealt with the issue clearly and if she just listens she may be able to correct her views and we may reach some agreement. As I made clear about five minutes ago, there has to be a significant and persistent problem of antisocial behaviour for the provision to apply, but just because there has been such behaviour before, that is not a reason for people whose mere presence causes alarm or distress to others to be dealt with in that way. They could be sent to prison for three months if they contravened a direction from the officer to move on.
	I know the hon. Lady's constituency quite well. I was on holiday in Cleethorpes a couple of summers ago. Let us imagine that in a park in Cleethorpes, or in Grimsby, there had been some persistent antisocial behaviour. Let us imagine that there had been some trouble in those places, that a week or two later the authorisation was given, that there were some young people hanging around and that people kept on phoning the police from houses across the road from the park, saying that they were troubled, distressed and concerned that those 16-year-olds were hanging around in the park. That would be sufficient for the police to be able to disperse that group, and that would be unacceptable. One should respond to behaviour, not presence, and on the basis of what people do, not of what others think that they might do. Nor should one respond on the basis of the reactions of others to the fact that such people are present.
	That is why the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is chaired by a colleague of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and does not have a Liberal Democrat majority, asked the House to consider whether these provisions breach our international legal requirements in law. If the hon. Lady has taken the trouble, as I hope she has, to talk to bodies such as the National Youth Agency, she will have discovered that they are strongly opposed to these provisions.

Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: Not just yet. If the hon. Lady had talked to the coalition of people who deal with children's and young people's issues—the National Children's Bureau and various other organisations—she would have discovered that they are strongly opposed to these provisions. If she had talked to the Association of Chief Police Officers, she would realise that it, too, has significant concerns about them. If she had talked to the Youth Justice Board, she would realise that the way to deal with the sort of people whom she may want to prevent from continuing to be antisocial—if that is what they have been—is not through this approach at all.
	Will coming in heavy with police officers and seeking to move on youngsters—particularly youngsters—who are doing nothing wrong, just because others have been doing something wrong, improve relations between the police and young people? It certainly will not. Will it improve respect for the police? It certainly will not. Will it improve behaviour in the community? It certainly will not. Will it improve respect from young people for those who made the complaint? It certainly will not. The hon. Lady should know that the alternative provisions and proactive, positive work with young people that the Youth Justice Board has been largely responsible for initiating have been far more effective in dealing with antisocial behaviour and youth crime, as I hope Ministers realise. If she does not know that, I invite her to talk to that body—a body that her Government set up. And I commend unreservedly the work done by Lord Warner, the former chairman of the Youth Justice Board—he is now a Minister in the Lords—and his staff.
	I have sheaves of paper in front of me that set out the successful schemes that are a result of initiatives taken by the hon. Lady's Government. They have reduced antisocial behaviour and crime in many of our communities. One example is the summer splash programme in Avon and Somerset.

Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: Yes, in a moment. Figures for summer 2002 show a reduction in street crime and robbery of 31 per cent. in those parts of the police authority that ran the scheme. That compares with an increase of 56 per cent. in areas where the scheme did not run. In south Yorkshire, the police authority of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), this type of crime fell last summer by 17 per cent. in areas that ran the scheme. That compares with an increase of 62 per cent. in areas that did not run it. Across all 10 summer splash areas, there was an overall reduction in the local crime rate of 5.2 per cent. between July and September.
	Colleagues and I have asked many questions on this issue, and the figures make it abundantly clear that what reduces antisocial behaviour is positive, proactive intervention with troublemakers and young people, not the heavy hand of the law in dealing with those who are doing nothing wrong.

Adrian Bailey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—at last. I have followed his argument with some interest. If the police receive complaints from local residents about a group of young—or not so young—people with a known record of antisocial behaviour congregating in a particular area, I cannot understand why they should not have the right to disperse them, thereby relieving the prevailing tensions in the local community, just because those people happen not to be doing anything at that specific moment.

Simon Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he does not understand the Human Rights Act 1998, implemented by his Government, which enshrined a right of assembly in this country's domestic law that can be upheld in the courts. It applies to 16-year-olds as much as to the hon. Gentleman, and it applies to people who are not doing anything wrong.

Adrian Bailey: rose—

Simon Hughes: I am not giving way for a second time. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that, under this legislation, the police are not restricted to picking up people who have been convicted of offences before or people who may have been guilty of antisocial behaviour. No such restrictions can be found in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stick up for people's rights to behave normally, as they choose and with their own freedom of expression, even if sometimes their presence causes other people some distress or alarm. The test should not be whether the hon. Gentleman is alarmed by three 17-year-olds coming down the street towards him; it should be whether there is a cause—

Adrian Bailey: rose—

Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Simon Hughes: I have already given way once and I am still dealing with the intervention of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey).
	The question should be whether those people are, because of their behaviour, causing the hon. Gentleman reasonably to be distressed or alarmed. If that is the case, having the power to intervene may be necessary. However, the police already have acres of legislation—passed by the present Government, the previous Government and the Government before that—to give them the power to deal with those circumstances. The police have a variety of crime and disorder legislation, common law—indeed, a bookful of legislation, which I shall give the hon. Gentleman to read over the weekend—at their disposal. The police already have preventive powers under public order legislation that allow them to intervene if they suspect a breach of the peace, if there is harassment or a threat. There is no need for more powers, when the current powers are not being used to the full.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that no proof of evidence of previous behaviour is required of any suspected groups of people before a police officer or group of officers can come along and designate a place to be one of persistent nuisance, which then gives them the right to disperse the group?

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Like me, he represents an inner city constituency where there are tensions, which sometimes lead to antisocial behaviour. However, we really cannot act on the basis of people's prejudice, or personal response to others. To take a controversial example, if a group of young middle eastern people walking along a street saw a gathering of some young Jewish people on the corner, it might be sufficient to trigger concern because they might feel distress or alarm. The young Jewish people might not have done anything, but the others could be distressed or alarmed because of their gathering—

Adrian Bailey: rose—

Simon Hughes: No, the hon. Gentleman has not read his legislation, and he should not go through the Lobby voting in favour of legislation that does not say what he thinks it says. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go to his constituents and defend people being taken off the streets and, if they do not agree with it, being regarded as committing a criminal offence that could result in their going to prison for three months when they have done nothing wrong, let him defend it! We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will not defend that. We defend punishing the guilty, but not punishing the innocent. We defend combating prejudice, not pandering to it.
	The hon. Gentleman must not go down the road of believing that going in, clearing the streets, moving people on and using the police to do it is the way to build good community relations. It is not, and anyone who knows what they are talking about knows that it is not. If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is the way to build a responsible next generation, I have to tell him that he is sorely misguided.
	I commend to the hon. Gentleman—and hope that, over the weekend, he will read—the public order digests that present all the current laws. I hope that he will tell us why, if it is such a good idea, a law on curfews has never been implemented. If he thinks that it is such a good idea, why do the police say that they would prefer to use existing crime and disorder legislation? Why do people who are involved in the splash projects, youth inclusion projects and many local schemes say that curfew law is the wrong way to deal with the problem? Why do people who deal in the frontline with young people's behaviour on the streets also say that it is the wrong way?
	I just want to make two more points on this proposal. I attended a meeting this morning at which officers from my local authority were making a presentation on developing the athletics track in Southwark park. One of the people from the national organisation representing athletics said to me—I did not prompt him to do so—"Go and tell people that the most useful thing that we can do for antisocial behaviour is to provide more sport, such as athletics and swimming." [Interruption.] Well, I give the Government credit, because they have done a lot, but they should do those things that the evidence proves work, not those things that risk only breeding resentment.

Adrian Bailey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way after all this time. I also have meetings in my constituency and the last few have been to open two sure start schemes designed to create supportive families and combat antisocial behaviour in the long term, and to open a Connexions office designed to help those in the 13 to 19-year-old age group. For him to pretend that the Government are using a one-club approach to this problem is a gross misrepresentation. These provisions will be a useful addition to all the other measures that the Government have instigated to combat antisocial behaviour, and he should acknowledge that.

Simon Hughes: I just wish colleagues would listen to debates. I spent the first five minutes of my speech acknowledging the work of the Youth Justice Board, which was created by the Labour Government in their first term, including the work of the board's first chairman and the projects it has implemented. I have given credit for the good things that the Government have done, that have worked and that been shown to work.
	I have never argued that the Government take a one-club approach. I have never even used the phrase. The hon. Gentleman did not hear me say that, because it was not part of my argument. What I object to is a Big Brother power to take people who have done nothing wrong, deprive them of their liberty and punish them just because they say, "I am sorry, but this is my street. I want to stay here, at this bus shelter or in this park. This is my place. Life at home in my flat on the 16th floor is not great, my parents don't look after me very well and I'd rather be here, with my mates in the fresh air. You tell me not to watch the television so much, and this is where I'd rather be."
	The argument is about standing up for young people. It was Edgar in "King Lear" who said, "stand up for bastards". I am standing up for young people. We should ask them what they want and whether they think that this would be a helpful power in the hands of the police. We should also ask those people who deal with young people every day and who work for the projects that the Government have funded. They will say that it is a bad idea. [Interruption.] Well, I have spoken to them and that is what they think.
	If hon. Members are not yet convinced, they should consider the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It states, at paragraph 33:
	"We accept that these are important problems"—
	by which they mean antisocial behaviour—
	"in some areas. However, when we initially examined the Bill we wondered how the measures would in practice make it easier to deal with the problem than it is at the moment. The police already have extensive powers to deal with public order problems. There are many statutes conferring such powers, including the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. In addition, there is the common law power to take such steps as are necessary to prevent a reasonably apprehended and imminent breach of the peace. If the measures were of no more practical assistance than existing powers, it would be hard to say that they are necessary in a democratic society for the legitimate purposes."
	Those are not my words, but the words of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has a Labour majority.
	The report also states:
	"When we raised this question, the Government replied that the proposed powers would not be dependent on the commission of a criminal offence by any individual in the group, or on the apprehension of an imminent breach of the peace.
	These powers would be entirely directed to allow potentially threatening situations to be defused before any harm or disorder becomes imminent.
	We are concerned by this response in so far as it is used to justify the introduction of new powers which engage Convention rights. It suggests that the proposed powers are not intended to be a response to threats of serious disorder, but rather to"—

Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: No. I am in the middle of quoting the report by the Human Rights Joint Committee, which has a Labour majority. The hon. Gentleman may not want to listen to my arguments, but he might listen to the Committee's unanimously approved arguments. The Committee stated:
	"It suggests that the proposed powers are not intended to be a response to threats of serious disorder, but rather to allow the police to manage people in public spaces in such a way as to prevent any more remote risk of minor disorder. It is true to say that this power does not currently exist in the law. There is a reason for that: it has heretofore been regarded as an unnecessary intrusion on the liberty of the individual to allow a constable to give orders to someone where there is no threat of crime or danger to safety. We consider that the potential intrusion on private life and liberty is so extensive and the benefits in any case likely to be so speculative that it might be difficult to establish (either in general or in specific cases) that the powers granted under clause 29 of the Bill will or would be used only when it was proportionate to a pressing social need."
	The final sentence in that quotation is printed in bold type in the report.

Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has been listening this time.

Adrian Bailey: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that anyone who has been dispersed by the police in such circumstances will be able successfully to challenge the legislation on grounds of human rights?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. It is pathetic.

Simon Hughes: It is frustrating that some hon. Members do not yet understand debate. The answer is that that is not what I said. If I had said it, the hon. Gentleman would have heard me say it. The answer is that the Joint Committee concluded that the proposal in the Bill could breach the law. Let us take the example of a person who has not committed an offence or done anything wrong and who refuses to comply when the police try to move him on. If that person were subsequently charged, convicted and sent to prison, he could succeed with a case against the Government.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman is proud of the finding that the Government are in breach of the human rights convention, as he will support the proposal in the Lobby. However, I should prefer him not to be proud of it. He should understand that civil liberties are precious, as are the liberties of the individual. We should not give power to the authorities unless those powers are clearly justified.
	My final point has to do with clause 29(6), which deals with young people under 16. It states:
	"If, between the hours of 9pm and 6am, a constable in uniform finds a person in any public place . . . who he has reasonable grounds for believing—
	(a) is under the age of 16, and
	(b) is not under the effective control of a parent or a responsible person aged 18 or over,
	he may remove the person to the person's place of residence unless he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person would, if removed to that place, be likely to suffer significant harm."
	That is a separate provision. It allows the police to take young people aged under 16 at any time after 9 o'clock at night and before 6 o'clock in the morning away from where they are. I understand the motivation for the proposal, but it is not a necessary or proportionate power, as the evidence given to the Human Rights Joint Committee shows. Young people under 16 are no more likely to be badly behaved than older people. In fact, most young people are well behaved. Many people over 16 behave much worse.
	The Government, rightly, have made a big deal about the rights of children, and we are under pressure to sign up to the UN convention on the rights of the child. The Government announced yesterday that the Minister for Children will also have responsibility for young people. We must take care that we do not tar young people with the brush of calling them troublemakers.
	Antisocial behaviour is a serious problem in all constituencies, and the pressure to deal with it is great. However, the responses to it can be either proper or improper. The responses in clause 29 are improper.

Shona McIsaac: I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate. Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), I believe that this is one of the most important sections of the Bill, so I am astonished that the Liberal Democrats want to delete all the provisions that give the police powers to deal with persistent and significant antisocial behaviour in our communities.
	We know that antisocial behaviour is a problem the length and breadth of the country. Every day hon. Members receive complaints from their constituents about such behaviour perpetrated by gangs—except in Ludlow. The Liberal Democrat spokesman in the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), told us that there was no antisocial behaviour in Ludlow, so perhaps we should not be astonished that the Liberal Democrats want to delete clause 29. Their spokesperson told us that antisocial behaviour did not exist. Liberal Democrat councillors throughout the land who are calling for increased powers to deal with antisocial behaviour and the dispersal of groups should pay attention to those remarks. Many Liberal Democrat councils back the Government's measures on the issue.

Annette Brooke: Is the hon. Lady confident that all the existing powers to deal with antisocial behaviour are being used in her area?

Shona McIsaac: No, antisocial behaviour in my area is not being tackled as well as I should like; it is a persistent problem, which is why we need additional legislation to support the existing provisions. The Bill should not be considered in isolation because its powers will interlink with others; they will weave together different aspects so as to tackle that most serious of problems in our communities.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in every year, under every Government, there is a crime Bill because that issue exercises our constituents? Sometimes, Governments get the measures right; sometimes, they get them wrong and some of the powers that we had hoped would work do not work in practice. However, the clause includes some practical provisions, which are certainly welcomed by the Police Federation; they will be used in moderation, in extreme cases where people want an end to horrendous and persistent yobbish behaviour.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend makes some pertinent points. He is right to draw our attention to the comments of the Police Federation. I notice that the Liberal Democrats conveniently glossed over those comments. In its response, the federation stated:
	"The power to be able to disperse unruly gangs is seen by the Police Federation to be particularly helpful for situations where a Section 5 Public Order offence is inappropriate, but where loutish, intimidating behaviour needs to be tackled and youngsters moved on. The provision of a power to deal with such situations, in a simple manner, would not only have a positive effect in practical policing terms but also assist communities that suffer from such problems."
	Perhaps the Liberal Democrats should pay attention to that submission.

Jeremy Corbyn: Obviously, from time to time, every Member has problems of antisocial behaviour among groups in their constituency. However, constituents also come to us because they feel that they have been wrongly treated by the police and wrongly tarred with that brush. Is not it of legitimate concern that the powers given to the police under the clause would require no serious proof of evidence, but would allow the police unfettered control over people?

Shona McIsaac: The Bill will not give the police unfettered control. My hon. Friend is basically saying that we should do nothing about antisocial behaviour.

Jeremy Corbyn: No, I am not.

Shona McIsaac: That is how my hon. Friend's comments will come across to our constituents. They will think that he does not want to tackle the issue. His use of the phrase "from time to time" said it all. Antisocial behaviour does not happen from time to time; it is persistent and significant, as is stated in the Bill.
	It is important to be able to give people the powers to take action against such groups, which can hold whole communities to ransom and terrorise everyone, from the young to the elderly. They cause problems across the board. I have found from discussing the issue with my constituents that some of the people who are most concerned about what they call gangs are young people themselves. They are often the victims of antisocial behaviour by gangs of youths gathering outside schools and attacking each other. Young people are often the ones being bullied, harassed and intimidated. In paying attention to young people, we must acknowledge that they are too often the victims of antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour should not be seen as an issue of the young versus the old, as the Liberal Democrats try to portray it.
	Like all hon. Members, I support youth projects—the Splash projects and so on—that try to find meaningful activities for young people. Those projects will continue, but they do not tackle all the problems. They certainly do not tackle problems that occur at 11.30, 12.30, 1.30 or 2.30 in the morning. No one will take young people along to a football match at 2.30 in the morning, when they are jumping on car roofs, making a racket and perhaps throwing bricks into people's gardens.
	We must have powers to deal with those situations when they occur, and the powers in part 4 are proportionate because of the inbuilt safeguards. The police will not be allowed to do whatever they like. The problem must be persistent, significant and occur in a designated area. That will provide safeguards. If used, the powers will reassure our communities that action is being taken to deal with an increasing and significant problem.
	The Liberal Democrats have completely missed the point today. I do not know what world they live in, but most of us live in the real world. I hope that we will resist the Liberal Democrats' foolish amendments, which would delete any extra power that the police could have to deal with the significant problem of antisocial behaviour in our communities.

James Paice: I almost hesitate to intervene in the somewhat heated exchanges that have started to develop. I confess to the House that, when the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said he would be brief, I suspected that we were doomed, and my self-prophecy proved right. The hon. Gentleman wanted to ensure that we reached the other two groups of amendments today and then took more than a third of the time allocated to make his opening speech.
	A large number of the amendments in this group are in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Although, as the hon. Gentleman said, one amendment has both our signatures, I hasten to assure him that that is pure coincidence because we are addressing the problem from completely opposite directions. We take the view—as we did in Committee—that it is not necessary to constrain the use of such powers in the way that the Bill proposes.
	I agree that a requirement for reasonableness in people's reactions is absent. If the hon. Gentleman has read the reports of the proceedings in Committee, he will know that I moved an amendment to that effect, so that the officer could assess whether he felt that people had reacted reasonably. The Government rejected that, and we shall seek to return to the issue when the Bill progresses to the other place.
	It is right that the police should have the powers to move people on and to disperse a group—not just young people under 16, as seemed to be the impression, but any group of people who are causing a nuisance. What I do not agree with the Government about is that it should be in a "relevant locality", with all the bureaucracy and paraphernalia that goes with designating that relevant locality. When there is clear evidence that a group of people are causing nuisance and annoyance and behaving antisocially in a particular location, the police should have the power, then and there, to do something about it. It is not necessary to go through all the bureaucracy of clause 30 to designate the area as a relevant locality.
	The majority of amendments that I tabled—I shall not detain the House by listing all of them—are designed to get rid of the concept of a relevant locality and simply to free up the police to use their discretion as they think fit if a problem arises in a particular area. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred to various youth projects, many of which are notable and have been developed through Government and voluntary initiatives for a long while, and I am sure that all Members support those in their constituencies. This is not, however, an either/or issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has spoken vividly in public about the excellence of these projects and the need for more of them, but whatever the project, pretending that they will somehow completely prevent any group of people gathering and causing a problem anywhere is wishful thinking in the extreme. We also need the powers to back up all the excellent work that provides activities for young people as well as others.
	We oppose totally the Liberals' attempt to remove this clause from the Bill. We do not pretend that it is perfect—we seek to amend it to give the police far more freedom and discretion. As I said, we believe that the Bill should include a test of reasonableness, which we tried to insert in Committee and which we shall seek to do again in the other place. Speaking for the Liberals in Committee, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said:
	"We do not oppose the clause"—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 8 May 2003; c. 143.]
	We should not be a bit surprised that by now the Liberals have changed their mind and want to remove it.
	The issue of relevant locality and the need for police discretion goes beyond democracy and designating a particular locality as relevant. Our amendments seek to address the problems that will arise for areas that are not designated as relevant localities. We all know that the types of people who in many cases gather and cause nuisance and antisocial behaviour will know full well what the law is, where the relevant locality is and where it is not. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) is nodding in agreement, so I hope that she agrees with the logic of my argument, which is to remove the provision on relevant locality from the Bill. What concerns me is that if the police officers come along, after they have gone through the paraphernalia—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stockton, South is now shaking her head; the Whips have got to her remarkably quickly. If the area has been designated through the bureaucracy of clause 30, and along comes a police officer who disperses a group of people, that group of people will immediately get wise to the fact that all they have to do is go down the road or across the street.
	The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) shakes his head, but the fact is that a relevant locality could be anywhere. If he reads the report of the Committee's proceedings, he will discover that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) suggested that it could be just by a cash point. The concept of a relevant locality—whether it is a few square yards or a few square miles—is not defined in the Bill.
	I suggest that young people, or anyone who would be affected by the provision, might well know the area of the relevant locality and continue their behaviour outside it, which might be in a different part of the borough or down the street—we do not know. It would depend on the part of the locality in which they committed the offence in the first place. The whole measure will quickly fall into disrepute if they are able to evade it, which is why I maintain that we should remove all the paraphernalia and simply give the police the power and discretion to disperse groups, subject to a test of reasonableness. Indeed, the Local Government Association's submission—I expect that all hon. Members have received it—said that the proposals might simply displace problems from one area to another, as I have said.
	Although the majority of our amendments seek to address that problem, I want to speak about one or two other issues. Amendment No. 76 stands alone and does not directly relate to any other amendments in the group. In Committee, I asked about police officers' ability to remove young people aged 16 to their place of residence unless such removal would be likely to cause harm. My worry, which is why I tabled the amendment, is that it is unclear from the Bill that if an officer took a young person back to their home, the officer would have complied with the removal. If, after reaching the home, the officer believed that the young person was at risk, perhaps because a parent or step-parent might exact retribution, I am not convinced that the Bill makes it clear that the officer could take him or her away again. The amendment would provide clarification that if an officer perceived that a young person might be at risk after removal to his or her place of residence, the obligation would be removed from the officer. The amendment is an attempt not to alter the Government's intention, but to provide clarification, because I am not sure that the Bill addresses the issue.
	I do not have specific concerns about the Government amendments in the group and we do not intend to oppose them. I think that they will extend slightly opportunities to use the powers and I shall be interested to hear how the Minister describes them. The provisions do not seem to be especially draconian.
	I return to the fundamental proposition behind the majority of our amendments: we support the principle that the police should be able to use dispersal orders, but we do not think that they should be so constrained that they cannot use them as and when problems arise. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) told us what happens at 10.30 or 11.30 pm. If such problems arise, the police should be able to do something then and there, rather than having to decide whether they are in a relevant locality under clause 30 and saying, "Oh no, we're not. We can't do anything about it." The police might have to tell people affected that they could use dispersal powers only if the problems were occurring in the next street.
	The Government have produced pretty dramatic proposals—I accept the remonstrations of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—but they are nevertheless necessary, as I am sure the Minister will say.
	However, the Government have also tried to hamper and constrain the proposals by creating the paraphernalia that surrounds the designation of relevant localities, and I fear that they will either fail to work or quickly fall into disrepute because people will find ways around them.
	Amendment No. 53 is not the lead amendment, so it has not been moved, but if no other amendment in the group is put to the vote, I shall move it formally. However, if the Liberal Democrats pursue their amendments to delete the relevant part of the Bill, not only can we not support them, but we will oppose them completely because their proposals go against what most of us find in our constituencies.

Hazel Blears: The clauses to which the amendments are tabled form an important, significant and central part of the powers available to police in such circumstances. I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) in his analysis of the powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) said in her passionate contribution, it is vital to take the powers, the Bill and our strategy and policy on tackling antisocial behaviour as a complete set of integrated measures. To single out the powers of dispersal as a fundamental attack on civil liberties does the hon. Gentleman no credit. If he is seriously saying to his constituents that he does not think that the powers are needed or requested by the people in his community, then I am astonished. It is yet another example of the Liberal Democrats willing the ends but not being prepared to will the means, in this case to tackle antisocial behaviour and disorder in our communities.
	The hon. Gentleman knows well, as he demonstrated in his contribution, that this Government have embarked on a series of investments to ensure that young people are diverted from crime and disorder. We are engaging them in youth projects and ensuring that they have educational and leisure opportunities. The Government have spent millions of pounds setting up an infrastructure to ensure that young people in particular have access to some of the opportunities that others take for granted. The powers of dispersal are designed to deal with those circumstances in which the presence or behaviour of a hard core of individuals intimidates, alarms, distresses and harasses people in our communities.
	We recognise that as the powers are important and significant, it is right that they are constrained by a series of conditions before they become operable. Those conditions are set out in clause 29(1)(a) and (b). It states that an officer has to have
	"reasonable grounds for believing . . . that members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour"
	of people in the locality, and
	"that anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality."
	It is certainly not a case of the Government rushing to give powers without a framework or constraints. Significant hurdles have to be overcome before the powers are triggered and kick in, which is the right way to proceed.

Jeremy Corbyn: I have two concerns about clause 29(1). The first is what legitimate proof of evidence is required on the persistent participation of the same people in an assembly at a particular point. The second is how a place is defined. Is it an immediate locality, a street, a neighbourhood or a whole town? That is unclear. Will the Minister explain?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend raises important points. The provision is for a senior officer to designate a locality, which is the right thing to do. That designation triggers the powers of the constable to make directions on dispersal.
	That locality could be an area covering a basic command unit, a borough or a ward. It is right that that matter should be subject to discussion with local crime and disorder reduction partnerships and community safety partnerships, as that would enable us to engage with the local community to find out where there is a problem and where the powers need to kick in. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) will notice that Government amendments Nos. 38 and 39 provide for the constable to make a direction in relation to part of the locality. If there is a problem in a parade of shops, a playground or a smaller part of the designated locality, there will be flexibility for constables, senior officers and the local community to use the provision as part of an armoury of tools. Members need to understand that this is not a one-club approach—it is part of a range of tools available to local communities to combat antisocial behaviour.

Simon Hughes: rose—

Hazel Blears: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman but, as his contributions took up three quarters of an hour, I am loth to do so.

Simon Hughes: If the locality proposal is such a good idea, why has the Government's only other proposal of a curfew in a specific locality not been used anywhere at all?

Hazel Blears: The aim of the Bill is to make sure that we have a straightforward way to tackle antisocial behaviour. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in relation to previous legislation, the local authority had to make an order, which had to be agreed between it and the police, then submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. That was a complex and bureaucratic way to proceed, but the Bill allows for a much simpler way to proceed, as the superintendent can designate the locality, then the constable can go in and exercise powers under the Bill. That is a much more appropriate way to proceed.

Siobhain McDonagh: Is my hon. Friend aware that much of the Committee's time was spent looking at proposals that could easily be made effective? Taking on board the points made by Liberal Democrat Members, we were aware that there was a raft of legislation, but the problem was that powers under that legislation were either not being used or were not working. I am willing to do a poll in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), and I am sure that the overwhelming majority of his constituents would support our suggestions.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who played an extremely constructive and helpful role in Committee by seeking to make the Bill's provisions effective. She has made an important point, and it is one of the reasons for the introduction of a regime of fixed penalty notices. We want to make sure that sanctions can be implemented quickly, easily and without bureaucracy so that they have an immediate effect.
	I find it quite strange to be in a position where, on the one hand, the Liberal Democrats are seeking to remove all the relevant provisions from the Bill, leaving us with no powers whatsoever to tackle the congregation of groups and, on the other, the Conservatives are seeking to remove all safeguards, constraints and hurdles that we have introduced to prevent an arbitrary exercise of powers. In those circumstances, we have adopted a third or middle way, which is the correct way to implement the Bill's powers.
	We need to get the balance right. The Bill deals with rights and responsibilities. It deals both with the rights of the community and the rights of individuals—that should always be uppermost in our mind. Up and down the country, communities are concerned about groups congregating and causing intimidation. I had an opportunity to read the debates in Committee, but I am afraid that I have not had the chance to visit Much Wenlock, where there is zero crime and disorder, although I hope to do so in future. However, I must tell the Liberal Democrat spokesman that his experience is very much a minority one. Thirty per cent. of respondents to the British crime survey said that groups congregating together, causing intimidation or distress, were either a big problem or a fairly big one in their communities. The Government are therefore seeking to address a significant issue.

David Taylor: At the weekend, I went to a public meeting in Moira in north-west Leicestershire at which hundreds of people expressed serious concern about the activities of a group of adolescent youths who lived in the area. Yes, what my hon. Friend is promoting may be a useful add-on to existing powers, but the community there believe that it is the availability, visibility and sensitivity of local policing that might tackle and draw the teeth of some of the concerns that they expressed to me in a tense and heated meeting at the weekend.

Hazel Blears: Many of us in our capacity as constituency Members of Parliament have attended such meetings, where people are rightly angry and feel powerless to do anything about their circumstances. Many of the powers in the Bill are designed to enable those communities to reclaim their streets and their neighbourhoods for the decent people who live in them. The massive numbers of extra police that the Government have funded, together with the community support officers who are increasingly visible on our streets and the neighbourhood wardens funded by local authorities, are providing a greater degree of visible reassurance to the people whom I represent and to many communities throughout the country. I acknowledge that the situation is not resolved, but we are making significant progress.

Matthew Green: I return to the core of clause 29. The Minister is right to speak of the hurdles that are in place when a senior officer designates an area—he must have reasonable grounds, and the antisocial behaviour must be significant and persistent. However, once the area has been designated for up to six months, and the constable is dealing with it, the condition of significant and persistent antisocial behaviour no longer applies. The condition is only that two or more people are gathering and might alarm somebody. They may well not be the people who caused the original problem. Does not the Minister understand that? How does she seek to ensure that the police will not use the powers against people who were not the cause of the problem in the first place?

Hazel Blears: Clause 29(1) makes it clear that the officer must have reasonable grounds for believing both that there is intimidation and that antisocial behaviour is a significant and persistent problem. I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the words of the clause carefully. No doubt they will be tested at some point.
	The powers are aimed at specific spots. I want to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about that. We have not sought a once-and-for-all power nationally. We recognise that problems spring up in certain localities. He referred to the constraints around them as paraphernalia. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the constraints and hurdles are an important framework within which the powers operate, and they are sufficient to satisfy genuine concerns about civil liberties, balanced by the rights of communities.
	I shall address the points raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That important Committee considered the matter carefully. We responded to the Committee's original concerns, it accepted many of our reassurances on various parts of the Bill, but as we have heard, it still has some concerns about the establishment of the power. We do not share the Committee's concern that it will be difficult to establish that the powers would be used only when there was a proportionate, pressing social need.
	When we think about pressing social need, we must put at the forefront of our mind communities that are currently prevented from using facilities in their area, such as the cash point or the shops. Young people may be prevented from using parks and leisure facilities because they are excluded from them by the attitude of the people who are causing mayhem and distress in their community. There is a series of safeguards, which I hope will reassure the Joint Committee. Authorisation must be given by a senior officer. The local authority must be consulted. The authorisation does not last for more than six months.
	When we come to make the code of practice under clause 33, it is important that it sets out the conditions in which the power can be operated. We should consider issues such as the grounds for authorisation having an objective basis. That is an important issue. I read the entire debate about reasonableness and when reasonableness applies to the considerations.
	Other important issues include seeing whether we can assess the sort of behaviour that the constable wants to prevent when he is making the direction; the degree of intimidation that might be appropriate for consideration; at what stage parents should be notified and brought into the process; and how to determine the geographical areas and locality involved—an issue raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. We want to clarify a range of issues in the code of practice, taking on board the important and serious matters raised by the Joint Committee. We feel that those provisos will certainly be sufficient to satisfy the human rights position. Human rights and responsibilities relate both to individuals and the communities that we are seeking to protect.

Jonathan R Shaw: In defining the locality, will not the police often say that crime is a responsibility not only for them, but for the entire community? In seeking to engage people in the process, does my hon. Friend agree that they are more likely to feel well disposed towards it and feel that it is worth while if they have some powers, and if they can see cause and effect in terms of discussion with the police and agree on a locality to deal with a persistent problem in their neighbourhoods?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which relates to the desire to enable communities to reclaim their neighbourhoods. That is possible if they feel a sense of ownership and believe that people are taking notice of what they are doing. If they feel that they are making significant steps on the basis of real power to make a difference in their communities, they will be much more likely to participate in a community safety or crime and disorder reduction partnership and feel that their time is well invested and that what they are doing is worth while. If people do not see any action, they will feel that it is pointless for them to be involved, so such provisions can increase the community involvement that we want to secure.
	We do not want to burden the police with a huge set of bureaucratic requirements. That is why the powers are different from some of the other powers that have been introduced in the past. We want to make the arrangements as simple as we can. It is important that the police feel confident about exercising their powers. The code of practice will be key in that respect. We want to ensure that the constables or community support officers who are making the directions feel confident about their powers. That is why we tabled amendments about choosing a part of the locality; I think that such flexibility is extremely important. I feel that the powers are necessary and proportionate, and that they will have a significant impact.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred to removing a child from the area. The powers allow young people who are under 16 to be taken back to their homes. If the constable thinks that they will be at risk of significant harm, he can alert social services and engage the child protection machinery that is available. This is not a case of penalising young people and saying that they are the perpetrators. They can be just as much at risk as anybody else of crime and of being drawn into prostitution or other exploitation and becoming victims. It is therefore appropriate that constables should have a power to decide that, as a child is out late at night, they are not supervised and their parents are not acting responsibly, they will take them home.
	Constables have considerable experience of assessing significant harm. They are all engaged with the local child protection procedures, and I do not anticipate that they would have any difficulty in assessing whether a child was likely to be at risk of significant harm. I therefore do not anticipate that any of the problems outlined by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will arise. The powers to take children back to their homes are important in ensuring that we can protect children who may be out and about at 1, 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, entirely inappropriately.

James Paice: The Minister is right in everything that she has said and I do not disagree with her comments, but she has not dealt with the point that I am trying to make in amendment No. 76. As the Bill is currently drafted, it states that a constable
	"may remove the person to the person's place of residence unless he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person would, if removed to that place, be likely to suffer significant harm."
	The point that I was trying to make is that, once the officer has taken the young person home, he will have carried out the removal, which will be in the past. The phrase "if removed to" is in the future tense. I want the Bill to be clear that, exactly as she says, when a constable sees the circumstances of the young person's home once he has taken them home and believes at that stage that they might suffer significant harm, he should be able to say to the young person "I have carried out the removal, but I am going to take you away again."
	It is not adequate simply to say, "Yes, I now think that he is going to suffer significant harm so I'll ring social services." That might be too late. I want the officer to have the discretion that he rightly says that he should have.

Hazel Blears: I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. The provision is designed to indicate that if the child would be at risk of significant harm, it is inappropriate to return them to that place. The duty is on the constable to assess the situation. Having taken the child to remove him to the home, if he finds circumstances there that could result in them being at risk of significant harm, he is under a duty to take steps to ensure that that does not happen. Under the general child protection provisions, we would expect constables to alert the duty social worker and to get in touch with the local authority social services department. I can therefore give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks that the child will not be at increased risk.
	The powers are necessary, proportionate and will provide another flexible tool in our armoury to tackle antisocial behaviour. They will be broadly welcomed by communities, although they are not supported by the Liberal Democrats. I ask the House to reject the wrecking amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats and to reject the Conservative amendment, which takes the libertarian argument a little too far. There should be some constraints on these serious powers. The Government have got the balance about right in the interests of the communities that we represent.

James Clappison: I agree with a great deal of what the Minister said. I would gently say to her, however, that the key element of the power is that it should be used sufficiently in practice. The test will be of how much practical use it is, especially to communities that are besieged by antisocial behaviour.
	The provision will be warmly welcomed by my constituents. In recent months, I have attended several meetings in which constituents have complained about problems caused by groups of youths misbehaving. At one well-attended meeting, there were a number of Liberal Democrat councillors who were anxious that something should be done. If I had been minded to make a point about the locality in which the problem was occurring, I would have tried their patience, given their long-standing experience of problems in their neighbourhood.
	It is entirely legitimate for Liberal Democrat Members to question new legislation and new powers for the police and to judge whether they are compatible with civil liberties. It is sometimes unpopular to plead the civil liberties cause, but I recognise that it is necessary to do so. However, I have to say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that on this occasion they have got it wrong. Their attitude towards the clause is misguided. It is proportionate, and it is not objectionable in principle to give the police this power. My worry is that it may not be used sufficiently in practice. I remind the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that we are not talking about arrest, loss of civil liberties or the acquisition of a criminal record, but the power of police officers to disperse groups of people, subject to certain conditions. I wonder whether too many conditions have been hedged around the power: there is a formidable list to be gone through. If problems of the kind described in clause 29(3) are occurring—that is, if a police officer
	"has reasonable grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of a group of two or more persons in any public place in the relevant locality has resulted, or is likely to result, in any members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed"—
	it is not out of proportion to give the police the power to require that group to disperse.
	When the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was asked earlier what he thought should be done about such people, he whispered under his breath, "Nick them." That is an entirely misguided approach to take. The activities described in subsection (3) would probably be an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, so the police would already be entitled to arrest somebody, bring charges against them and haul them up in court for such behaviour.
	Would it not be better from everyone's point of view to give the police the power to disperse the group first, to prevent any of those consequences from arising? Would it not be in the interests of the young people themselves to be dispersed rather than arrested and hauled before the courts, where they could get a criminal record? I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he is utterly misguided.

Simon Hughes: The comment that I made earlier was that if the people in question, young or old, were committing an offence, they could indeed be arrested. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the power contained in clause 31(2) were put into the legislation, someone who
	"knowingly contravenes a direction given to him under section 29(4) commits an offence",
	could be arrested and sent to prison for up to three months?

James Clappison: One would hope that they would obey the direction given to them by the police officer. That would certainly be better than the police officer arresting them there and then for an offence, and taking them to a police station for charges to be brought. It would be better for the person concerned, because they would not acquire a criminal record under public order legislation. The hon. Gentleman talks about circumstances in which an offence has been committed, but I strongly believe that this would be the same offence as exists at the moment under that legislation. This Bill gives the police an additional power to require people to be dispersed. I do not think that that is out of proportion. Indeed, I think that it will be a help, but I have to say to the Minister that I wonder whether there is an overload of conditions in the clause.
	The key is whether the provisions will be used in practice. Curfews have been mentioned. They, too, were put forward as an important part of the Government's armoury, but, as we know, they have not been much used. The Government have introduced other legislative measures that have been more successful. It is important to keep an eye on powers such as these, to design them so that they are easy to use and readily available to the police, and to ensure that they are actually used. That is what our constituents want. My constituents are crying out for action on law and order, particularly on antisocial behaviour. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey might have noble motives but, in this case, he is totally misguided. Removing the clause would send entirely the wrong signals in our attempts to tackle antisocial behaviour. He is wrong on this, and I hope that he will reconsider his position. If anything is out of proportion on this, it is the attitude of the Liberal Democrats to this fairly modest measure.

Jeremy Corbyn: I will be brief, as I realise that we have only a couple of minutes left. I do not necessarily want to make myself unpopular with my own Front Bench, but I have serious concerns about the powers in this clause. That is not because I am in favour of antisocial behaviour—quite the opposite. My constituency, like many others, suffers from all kinds of totally unacceptable antisocial behaviour. Like many others, I have attended public meetings at which people make all kinds of allegations about groups of young people. Some are true and justified; some are untrue; and some are based on misconceptions or misperceptions.
	I have also spent some time talking to groups of young people who hang around the place in large numbers looking intimidating. They often tell me that they are broke and bored, and that the youth club has been closed. What are they supposed to do? Last weekend, I found a group of people hanging round a park. They could have been deemed to be antisocial. They told me that they were unemployed, broke and bored. They were not really presenting a threat to anyone. We need to keep a sense of proportion in these matters.
	I would also suggest to the Minister that the power to designate an area is far too general and broad. One could imagine an over-zealous senior officer simply designating a whole borough as the "relevant locality". What, then, would happen whenever people assembled? What would the police actually do? Surely we should rely on intelligent co-operative policing.
	My final point is on the proposals for under-16s to be taken home after 9 o'clock at night. What is the reaction of the young people in the rest of the community going to be to a group of 15-year-olds who are out on a Friday evening being taken home by police officers? Can we not just think this through a bit more?

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friends and Conservative Members tabled amendments in Committee. We wanted to amend the Bill, but we were unable to persuade the Government to do so. At that stage, we did not seek to delete the clause, but we tried to improve it. We failed to do that. We had an honest debate. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made a reasonable point about what powers are needed. We have a different judgment, because we believe that plenty of powers are available. The Association of Chief Police Officers was clear that this clause may lead to
	"confrontation, disengagement and isolation of some elements of the communities we police."
	The Police Federation, although supportive in general, was against these powers being available to community support officers.
	If the Minister reads the Bill carefully, she will see that my hon. Friends were right. There has to be the precondition of persistent antisocial behaviour, but it allows the authorities to intervene on someone who has never been involved in that.
	We have an honest difference of view. We think that plenty of powers are available, that the clauses in part 4 are not necessary and will, on balance, be unhelpful. We want to deal with antisocial behaviour, but we strongly believe that this is a step too far. We hope that the House of Lords will substantially amend the Bill, but that, in the first place, hon. Members will join us in rejecting clause 29, thus signifying that part 4 is not the answer to the problems that many of us experience.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 415.

Question accordingly negatived.
	It being three and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Madam Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day.]

Clause 29
	 — 
	Dispersal of Groups Etc.

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 25, line 6, after second 'locality', insert
	'or any part of the relevant locality'.
	No. 39, in page 25, line 10, at end insert
	'or any part of the relevant locality'.—[Ms Blears.]

Clause 34
	 — 
	Authorisations by British Transport Police

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 28, line 6, leave out '29(1)(a)' and insert '30(1)(a)'.—[Ms Blears.]

Clause 36
	 — 
	Anti-Social Behaviour Orders

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 29, line 39, at end insert—
	'(8) An order under section 57 made in relation to subsection (5) above may make provision for that subsection to come into force—
	(a) for such period as is specified in the order;
	(b) on different days in respect of persons of different ages.
	(9) Subsection (8) does not affect section 58(2).
	(10) The making of an order as mentioned in subsection (8)(a) does not prevent the making of a further order under section 57—
	(a) whether for the same or a different purpose, or
	(b) in relation to the same area.'.—[Ms Blears.]

Schedule 2
	 — 
	Curfew Orders and Supervision Orders

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 54, line 10, at end insert—
	'(8A) If at any time while a supervision order imposing a foster parent residence requirement is in force, the supervisor notifies the offender—
	(a) that no suitable local authority foster parent is available, and
	(b) that the supervisor has applied or proposes to apply under paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 for the variation or revocation of the order,
	the foster parent residence requirement shall, until the determination of the application, be taken to require the offender to live in local authority accommodation (as defined by section 163 of this Act).'.—[Ms Blears.]

Clause 43
	 — 
	Air Weapons: Age Limits

Caroline Flint: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 34, line 30, at end insert
	', and
	(b) after subsection (2) insert—
	"(3) It is not an offence under section 22(4) of this Act for a person of or over the age of fourteen to have with him an air weapon or ammunition on private premises with the consent of the occupier.
	(4) But where a person has with him an air weapon on premises in circumstances where he would be prohibited from having it with him but for subsection (3), it is an offence for him to use it for firing any missile beyond those premises."'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, at end insert—
	'( ) where an offence is committed under subsection (4) the donor or lender of the weapon shall also be liable for the offence.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7.
	Amendment No. 70, in page 35, line 7, clause 44, after 'which', insert '(i)'.
	Government amendment No. 8.
	Amendment No. 71, in page 35, line 9, at end insert
	'and
	(ii) either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length for is less than 60 centimetres in length overall and
	(iii) is readily convertible (as defined in section 1(6) of the Firearms Act 1982) to fire ammunition capable of discharging a missile by the force of gunpowder or other explosive material.'.
	Amendment No. 72, in page 35, line 25, after 'which', insert
	'has a barrel length less than of 30 centimetres in length or is less than 60 centimetres in length overall and'.
	Amendment No. 73, in page 35, line 27, after 'dangerous', insert
	'by virtue of the fact that it can be readily converted to be capable of discharging a missile by the force of gunpowder or other explosive material'.
	Amendment No. 74, in page 35, line 44, at end insert—
	'(4B) If it appears to the Secretary of State that the provisions of the principal Act relating to prohibited weapons or ammunition should no longer apply to any weapon or ammunition he may by Order remove such weapon or ammunition from those specified in section 5.'.
	New clause 6—Requirement of firearm certificate for air weapons—
	'(1) For rule 2 of the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969 (as amended by the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) (Amendment) Rules 1993 there shall be substituted the following—
	"2.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, rule 3 of these Rules applies to an air weapon (that is to say, an air rifle, air gun or air pistol)—
	(a) which is capable of discharging a missile so that the missile has, on being discharged from the muzzle of the weapon, kinetic energy in excess of 5.42 joules (4ft/lb), or
	(b) which is disguised as another object.
	(2) Rule 3 of these Rules does not apply to a weapon which only falls within (1)(a) above and which is designed for use only when submerged in water.".'.
	New clause 13—Carrying of an unloaded airgun or air rifle—
	'At the end of section 23 of the Firearms Act 1968 insert—
	'(3) It is not an offence for a person who has attained the age of 14 but is under 17 to have an unloaded airgun or air rifle with him in a public place provided that:
	(a) The airgun or air rifle is so covered by a securely fastened gun cover so that it cannot be used,
	(b) The young person is travelling directly to or from a place at which he can lawfully use the airgun or where it has been kept on his behalf (whether for repair or otherwise).'.
	Government amendment No. 9.

Caroline Flint: With the permission of the House, I should like to speak to Government amendments Nos. 3 to 9. I will then listen to the debate on the other amendments, which we will resist, and respond to the debate on them at the end.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) for bringing the misuse of airguns to the attention of the House. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford has actively sought to raise the issue in his private Member's Bill. He knows that the Government are not unsympathetic to what he has tried to achieve, and we hope that our current proposals to raise to 17 the age at which a young person can own an air weapon and to strengthen controls on unsupervised use will go a long way to meeting his concerns.
	We were aware in Committee of the implications of clause 43 for young shooters in rural areas. It is common for them to use airguns unsupervised for shooting practice and pest control on farms. It is claimed that adult supervision is neither necessary nor practical in such circumstances. The Government have listened to those concerns and have tabled amendments that create an exception to the general requirement for supervision. The exception relates to young people aged 14 to 16 inclusive when they are on private premises, provided that they have the consent of the occupier. However, the use of airguns is not restricted to rural areas, and many of the complaints from hon. Members concern their use in built-up, residential areas in urban, semi-urban and semi-rural settings. The exception will, therefore, not apply exclusively to rural areas. To protect innocent people from the indiscriminate shooting of air guns, it will also apply in urban areas, but we have built in the extra safeguard of making it an offence punishable by a fine of up to £1,000 to fire a pellet beyond the premises—such as the back garden of a house. We have sought to achieve a balance by listening to all sides of the debate on this important issue.
	Government amendment No. 8 will simplify the description of air weapons to be banned under clause 44. The ban relates to weapons that use a self-contained gas cartridge system. As drafted, the description is supplemented with the phrase
	"whether powered by air or carbon dioxide".
	In Committee, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) questioned whether the supplementary phrase was necessary. He thought that it might be too restrictive and allow the ban to be circumvented if someone developed a weapon powered by another gas—for example, nitrogen. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I agree with him and the amendment will delete the phrase.

James Paice: I welcome the Minister to this part of the debate. As she said, this is an important issue that rouses tremendous emotions. I speak not only on behalf of the Opposition but on behalf of tens of thousands—if not hundreds of thousands—of people who shoot as a leisure pursuit. I wholly condemn the misuse of air weapons and I want that to be clear and on the record. Every self-respecting member of the shooting fraternity wholly condemns that misuse, whether it be shooting at people, pets or buildings. It is wrong, and it should not happen.
	The issue is how such misuse is prevented. Now is not the time to reprise all the arguments that we heard in Committee and that have been made by the Firearms Consultative Council, the Select Committee and many other organisations. Suffice it to say that almost everything that people describe as misuse is already an offence. I understand the Government's desire to take further action to reflect public concern and to try to ensure that people do not misuse air weapons. In that respect, I understand and support the Government's motives. However, I am not convinced that the decision to increase the age limit from 14 to 17 is necessary, although I understand the Government's reasons for doing so.
	I welcome Government amendment No. 3, which recognises the force of argument in Committee and from outside organisations that there is a justification for young people between 14 and 17 using air weapons on private land, either for target practice or pest control. I welcome the amendment, which is almost word for word the one that I tabled in Committee. I would be happy to go even further, which is why I have tabled amendment (a). I note the Minister's comment that she intends to resist it, and I would be interested to hear her reasons.
	One of the themes of the Bill has been the belief in parental responsibility. Indeed, other parts of the Bill are directly aimed at that. Therefore, I would be happy for parents to be held responsible, and liable to be charged with an offence, if they provided a young person with an air weapon that was then used illegally. Amendment (a) would simply provide that if a weapon were used improperly—if a missile went beyond the boundary of the premises or were fired without the consent of the occupier—then the person who gave or lent the weapon to the young person who fired it should also be liable. I shall be interested to hear why the Government have decided not to accept the amendment. At this stage, I cannot say whether I shall accept their argument.
	New clause 13 deals with young people carrying air weapons to the place where they will be used. Many organisations have raised this matter, both those directly involved in shooting and those of a more general sporting nature. Young people can use air weapons for pest control, as has been described, but also as a way to enter the sport of target shooting. Air pistols are used by entry-level participants in that sport, but .22 or full-bore rifles are used by more experienced shooters. Competitions are held at all levels, ranging from local events to the Olympics. They are very important for a significant number of people. I am concerned that the Bill will mean that, although it is legal for young people to use a weapon in competition, they will not be able to take a weapon to a competition.
	Existing legislation requires that an air weapon in a public place must be unloaded and securely fastened in a secure container. The new clause would allow a young person to carry an air weapon to a legitimate place of use—to private land, or a shooting range, for example, or to a repair shop—as long as it was unloaded and securely covered. Also, the young person would have to demonstrate that he was en route to a legitimate use of the weapon.
	The matter has caused widespread concern, and other hon. Members will want to contribute to the debate. When it was raised in Committee, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), said that he was not persuaded of the argument. I undertook to go away and ensure that those from outside organisations concerned about the matter took the opportunity to persuade the Government of the validity of the argument. I hope that they have been able to do so, even though the Minister's opening remarks about resisting every proposal that was not a Government amendment does not give me great comfort. However, I hope that she will understand that the matter is one of genuine concern for many people. I do not believe that the new clause would result in the misuse that I presume is at the root of her opposition to it.
	I turn now to the separate issue of guns that use the gas cartridge system, and the powers that the Government propose to enable the Secretary of State to ban such weapons. Clearly, a serious problem exists. It is commonly called the Brocock issue, after the brand name of the most widely used gas cartridge air pistol. We know from the police that such weapons are regularly found to have been converted to fire proper gunpowder-propelled projectiles. Amendments Nos. 70 and 72 would constrain the Government's powers. They would not prevent the Government from taking those powers, as I recognise that there is no alternative, even though my basic approach to life is a desire not to ban anything. I have looked at many options, and believe that the only avenue open to the Government was to ban such weapons. However, I am not content that the Bill could allow the Government to ban almost anything that they chose. That would be taking things too far.
	We have frequently debated Henry VIII-type and order-making powers and, almost every Member has spoken for or against them. Where there is a case for them, they should be limited. Taken together, my cluster of amendments would constrain such powers. Obviously, I welcome the Minister's comments about my proposals to remove definitions of the type of gas; it seems sensible that the provisions should apply to any gas, and I am grateful to her for accepting that point.
	We want to limit the powers in three aspects. First, the provisions would apply only to gas cartridge systems. Secondly, such systems have to be especially dangerous, defined as
	"those guns that can be converted to discharging a missile using gun powder or other explosive material".
	Thirdly, the provision should be limited to weapons that are small, in both barrel and overall length.
	Some of our amendments were drafted by the British Shooting Sports Council, which is aware of the need to do something about the problem. However, I hope to persuade the Government that, while doing so, we should not penalise the vast majority of people who use air weapons for safe and responsible purposes. Government amendment No. 3 recognises that desire and I hope that, on reflection, they will realise that the powers that they are taking in clause 44 go beyond what is necessary to address what I readily accept is a current problem relating to some self-contained gas cartridge system weapons. The purpose of my amendments is to address that problem.
	When the Minister moved amendment No. 3, she noted that many hon. Members would want to speak. I do not want to take too much of the time that we have been allocated for this element of our proceedings, so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion.
	People concerned about the misuse of weapons and those who have suggested amendments that would be even more restrictive than the Government's proposals should understand that those of us who do not want to go down that road certainly do not condone the misuse of air weapons. We want it to be stopped.
	The debate is about how, rather than whether, that misuse should be stopped. Wholesale registration would not work. The bureaucratic system would be immense, bearing in mind the estimate that about 4 million air weapons are in circulation. The Government's general approach is in the right direction, with some exceptions. However, our amendments would slightly redress the balance.
	Our amendments would not create a free-for-all for the users of air pistols and air rifles; they would simply ensure that we maintain balance between the small minority of people who misuse such weapons and the vast majority who use them responsibly, properly and safely. I respect the concerns of people who feel that no guns should be allowed or that no private gun use is safe. I do not agree with their arguments but I accept that they are sincerely held. I hope that those who make such arguments will also accept the sincerely held views of those who have used such weapons for much of our lives, and do so responsibly and safely. We believe that there is a place for air weapons and other weapons in our community and that they can be part and parcel of our leisure pursuits without causing damage or risk to the vast majority of people. Such people should not be confused with the tiny minority who use weapons maliciously to commit crime or intentionally to cause harm to people, property, birds or animals.
	There is a place for air weapons in our society. We have to find the right balance and, with amendment No. 3, the Government have moved a little way in finding that balance. I hope that the Minister will understand in addressing my amendments that I am simply trying to take that balance a little further, but not excessively so. I look forward to listening to her comments, but I repeat my opening remarks that no one whom I know, nor any reputable shooting organisation, does anything but totally condemn the misuse of air weapons, causing damage or risk to anyone or anything.

David Clelland: It may be that some people will be deprived of their pleasure as a result of the Bill, but, too often, the victims of the misuse of such weapons are deprived of their lives or livelihoods.
	I wish to address my remarks to new clause 6, which appears on the amendment paper in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) and myself. My right hon. Friend, who has long campaigned on the issue, has asked me to express to the House her bitter disappointment that she cannot take part in the debate for unavoidable reasons.
	The purpose of new clause 6 is to extend the need to hold a firearms certificate for the possession, purchase or acquisition of weapons with the capacity to inflict fatal injuries. That would ensure that the applicant is a suitable person to be entrusted with a firearm and that suppliers of dangerous air weapons are registered. In so far as it goes, we welcome part 6, especially clause 42, which deals with carrying firearms in a public place. We welcome the fact that it will be an offence to carry an air weapon or an imitation firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. We welcome the fact that that will be an arrestable offence, subject to a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment. That demonstrates that the Government take the issue seriously.
	We welcome the age increase from 14 to 17—it will be offence for anyone to give an air weapon to a person under 17, and those under 17 will not be able to own an air weapon—and tightening up when such weapons may be used unsupervised. We also welcome the fact that, under clause 44, the Secretary of State will be able to prohibit or introduce other controls in respect of any air weapon that appears to him to be especially dangerous. Of course, that will apply to those air weapons that may be converted to use conventional ammunition. In welcoming those measures, I also have to point out that we do not feel that they do not go far enough.
	The Minister will be aware that 75 local authorities and six police authorities in England and Wales have signed up to a campaign, led by Gateshead metropolitan borough council, to bring those possibly lethal weapons under the same control as other firearms. There has been an increasing number of incidents in which serious injuries and even deaths have been caused by the irresponsible use of air weapons.
	In 2001, Matthew Sheffield, who was 13-years-old, was killed by the irresponsible use of an air weapon. That is just one example, and I shall quote his parents' comments:
	"We find it incomprehensible that the use of a fishing rod, the purchase of a new TV and obtaining a driving licence are subject to greater regulation than the purchase and use of a firearm capable of causing death."
	That comment goes to the nub of new clause 6.
	In 2000, the Select Committee on Home Affairs found that the power of an air weapon capable of inflicting fatal injuries was a third of that at which the weapon would fall into the firearms category under the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969. The Select Committee recommended that firearms should be licensed according to their lethality, rather than their mechanism. It found that there was no reason to license weapons with insufficient power to inflict fatal injuries and that the muzzle energy below which a licence should not be required was 4 foot-pounds. That is why we recommend that weapons with a muzzle energy of more than 4 foot-pounds—5.42 J—should fall within the regulations.
	We would also argue that a fee is paid to the police force for the certificate, so that no new burden would be placed on the police, should the Minister put up that argument. Furthermore, we would argue that there would be potential savings to the police force in terms of armed response deployments, as a significant number of such incidents involve air weapons. In Northumbria, for instance, around 50 per cent. of such incidents fall into that category.
	We believe that the amendment is modest and sensible, and it would certainly be widely welcomed by those who have suffered because of the reckless and irresponsible use of air weapons, which the current law fails to tackle correctly. I am sorry that the Minister has indicated that she will resist the amendment, and I hope that she will explain why that is the case. If there are technical reasons for resisting it, I hope that she will assure the House that the Government recognise the validity of the amendment and that they will review firearms legislation to introduce new restrictions before more avoidable accidents and fatalities take place.

Matthew Green: I add Liberal Democrat support to the amendments that the Government have tabled after discussion in Committee. That discussion was prompted rightly by the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), which we supported. We showed that the large-scale use of air weapons in rural areas does not pose a significant problem. The measure would have prohibited the use of such weapons by people aged between 14 and 17, creating an offence when there is not a problem. For those who were not members of the Committee, my constituency is the size of Greater London, and I estimate that there are probably between 5,000 and 10,000 air weapons in my constituency and 63 police officers, only about a quarter of whom are on duty at any one time. It would be completely outside the realm of the police in my area to attempt to control use of such weapons by people aged between 14 and 17, and it would not be a task that they would want.

Roger Williams: My constituents will also be grateful for the Government amendment, especially Sennybridge pony club, which trains young people in the sensible use of weapons, particularly for triathlon events involving riding, running and target practice. That will be able to continue.

Matthew Green: I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
	This group also includes several other amendments, some of which we can support in principle, although I am not certain about the detail as I am not an expert in that regard. Broadly, those are Conservative amendments. We cannot support new clause 6, because of the large numbers of weapons, estimated to be in the millions, that exist in the country. Trying to bring those under licensing would be a vast exercise. It would criminalise many people who did not license them, and an extremely long period of grace would be required. I understand people's concern that the misuse of air weapons—which is an already an offence—can in extreme circumstances cause injury and fatalities. We all have great sympathy in that regard, but such misuse is relatively small-scale given that these weapons are very widespread. New clause 6, in seeking to bring air weapons into the licensing system, attempts a Herculean task, which may prove counter-productive in the long run.

David Clelland: The hon. Gentleman is not picking up what I said correctly. It is not a question of bringing all air weapons into the regulations—only those weapons that are powerful enough to be capable of causing death. That was not only my view and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends but the view of the Select Committee.

Matthew Green: I fully sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's comments. As I understand it, however, a lot of weapons would be brought in under the 4 foot-pounds provision, including virtually every make of air rifle—which are used extensively in rural areas. Air pistols are not used extensively in areas such as my constituency.
	The Conservatives are right to raise these issues, especially in relation to clarifying which gas-propelled air weapons, which can be converted, are to be brought under the new prohibition, and making sure that that is limited to the weapons that are causing the problem. Problems in relation to the misuse of firearms and particular brands of air weapon and their conversion need to be tackled. We all agree on that. What we must make sure of, however, is that the law deals with the problem and does not stretch beyond it. I do not know whether the amendments are drafted correctly, but I hope that the Government will at least respond sympathetically. The amendments may not be the perfect way of dealing with the problem, but the Conservatives were right to table them, and they carry our broad support.
	We have a fair degree of sympathy with new clause 13. In relation to the carriage to a gun club of an air weapon that is securely wrapped in a box or case that prevents access to the trigger mechanism, it seems inappropriate for the Government to ask 16-year-olds to make sure that their parents take them to the gun club, which may be only half a mile down the road, either by walking with them or carrying the weapon in the boot of the car. Safeguards should be provided, however, to ensure that the gun is not carried openly in the streets—that it is covered and protected—as the open carriage of gun would invite danger, perhaps more on the young person than on anyone else, as it might add to the attraction for someone to have a go at them.
	We welcome the fact that the Government listened, and I am glad that the amendments have been tabled. They meet a number of the concerns that have been raised, and I hope that a sympathetic attitude will be shown to some of the other concerns that are being expressed and that perhaps they will be given further consideration. What the Government are setting out to do, which we all support, should tackle the problem itself and not go beyond tackling the problem, which would clearly be unnecessary legislation.

Dari Taylor: I have supported 98 per cent. of this Bill, and I have been very pleased to be involved in it in Committee and on Report. But I have one serious disappointment that I want to share with the Minister. I hope that she will understand my disappointment and that she will make a commitment to review the issue over time. That disappointment is in relation to air weapons and firearms. Most particularly, I am disappointed that air weapons, which are defined as fairly innocuous and not potentially dangerous despite being potentially lethal weapons, are not to be registered and licensed.
	I am pleased with much that is said in the Bill about the way that air weapons must be handled in a public place, and that only those over 17 years of age will be able to purchase them—all of that is valuable—but the main issue for all of us is the potential of these weapons, misuse of which has caused a death in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) mentioned Matthew Sheffield, who lived in Eaglescliffe in my constituency. He was a young 14-year-old boy who was playing on a pleasant Sunday afternoon with an air rifle. He died because that air rifle was misused. That lethal potential must be acknowledged.
	The second feature of my reservation and concern is that clause 43 will amend section 22 of the Firearms Act 1968 so that it will not be an offence for a person aged over 14 to have an air weapon or ammunition on private premises with the consent of the occupier. The clear fact is that Matthew Sheffield's friends had the consent of the occupier. They were on private premises and the air rifle was used inappropriately.

James Paice: I entirely respect the hon. Lady's views, which she expressed in Committee. Does she accept that Government amendment No. 3, which is similar to an amendment that I tabled in Committee, would make it illegal for a projectile from an air weapon to go beyond the boundary of private premises? Although she is right to describe the tragedy in her constituency by saying that the weapon was fired from a private property, an offence would have been committed under the new proposals because the missile went beyond the private property to cause the fatality.

Dari Taylor: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate. The missile was fired on private property and the child died. The children were in a garden—his garden. The missile did no go over a hedge or outside the private property. The sheer enormity of the distress is shown by the fact that the incident happened on a Sunday afternoon while the children were playing a game that went wrong. The point is not only that a 14-year-old boy has died and a family has been traumatised, but that the boy's four friends find it difficult to come to terms with the fact that they were playing a game when an accident meant that a child died.
	I would never say that everyone misuses firearms or air rifles. I am simply saying that the issue with which we must all cope is that such weapons have a lethal potential. I believe that if an adult had named responsibility for an air weapon and gave it to a person aged between 14 and 17 with strict instructions on its use, it would have a controlling effect by ensuring that the young person knew the rifle's limitations and potential.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is undoubtedly a true statistic that the vast majority of serious injuries and deaths caused by juveniles using air rifles happen on private property without the missile going outside private property? Does she agree that the Government's position is completely illogical?

Dari Taylor: I do not accept that the Government's position is completely illogical. We are all trying to handle the issue carefully. The problem is that air weapons have a lethal potential. It is not illogical to try to handle the problem so that people who use air rifles to cope with rats or other vermin on private property may do so. I do not accept my hon. and learned Friend's proposition, although I know that it is a fact that most accidents and deaths occur on private property.
	I do not want to labour my point further, but I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that potentially lethal weapons cause a problem. It is true that accidents occur on private property, and it is appropriate to maintain a focus on reviewing the problem so that if it is considered appropriate—as I believe that it is—further legislation may be introduced to provide that air weapons should be bought under licence. Such legislation should provide for a named responsibility. That is an appropriate stance and I ask the Minister to be mindful of my request.

Peter Atkinson: It would be correct to mention my entry in the Register of Members' Interests because it might be relevant to the debate.
	I tell the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) that I appreciate the tragedy in her constituency. I am also aware of other accidents, such as when a young girl was blinded in Gateshead owing to the misuse of an air weapon. However, the only way in which we could provide that an air rifle or any firearm never caused an accident would be by banning them all. That would be similar to saying, "If you don't want people to be killed by cars, ban all cars"—the point becomes rather ridiculous. In this case, hard cases would make bad laws.

David Clelland: It is a question not of banning anything but of control. We are saying that if something looks like a gun, shoots like a gun and kills like a gun, it should be licensed like a gun.

Peter Atkinson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I am coming to that point. The hon. Member for Stockton, South was highlighting the fact that a gun was misused in an incident in her constituency, that it could have been licensed and that a young man died as a consequence. It is almost impossible to legislate to prevent such incidents. They are tragic, but tragedies do happen.
	The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) mentioned licensing. His proposal in new clause 6 would apply to air rifles producing 4 foot-pounds or more of energy, meaning that it would cover virtually every air rifle that exists. We do not know how many air rifles exist in this country; my estimate is 3 million and we have heard another estimate of 4 million. Registration of those weapons would place a huge and costly burden on the police. The cost would obviously be passed on to those who wish to use air weapons. Our experience of firearms and shotgun certificates shows that such additional cost places a real burden on low-income families. I think that my hon. Friends would agree that many people from low-income households who used to enjoy shooting have been forced to give it up because of the cost of registration.

David Clelland: I mentioned cost in my remarks. A price would have to be paid for a licence but there would not be an extra burden of cost on the police. The hon. Gentleman says that the number of air rifles with the lethality that we have described is unknown and that is the whole point. We should know how many such lethal weapons are out there, which licensing would achieve.

Peter Atkinson: Licensing involves a complicated and bureaucratic system. If an individual were to be licensed to possess any air weapon, checks would have to be made on the individual and the circumstances in which the weapon would be used, where it would be kept and whether it would be secure would all need to be determined. The same rules and regulations as apply to shotguns and rifles would apply to air weapons. That would represent a huge burden that would have to be paid for—presumably by those who want to use the weapons.

Dari Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right that the provision would create a burden, but we have spoken to police authorities. Cleveland police authority is more than keen to be involved in a licensing scheme. We should consider neither burden nor cost, but whether we can increase control and prevent accidents. None of us would claim that we can eliminate accidents completely, but after one has met a family and experienced such an incident at close hand, one realises that it behoves us to find a solution to the problem.

Peter Atkinson: I know exactly how the hon. Lady must have felt when she talked to the family and we all have great sympathy for them. However, I do not think that her proposal would solve the problem. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge said that Northumbria police are called to many incidents caused by the improper use of air weapons, but the way in which many are used is illegal now. The vast majority of wounding incidents caused by air weapons are due to people breaking the existing law. Simply passing legislation to provide that everything must be registered would not mean that illegal air weapons—as they would become—would disappear from circulation.
	Those of us who have had the same argument about handguns and shotguns time and again have said that registration may be introduced and controls may be made tougher, but it will not reduce the number of illegally used and held weapons. History proves that to be correct.
	The Government are right to resist new clause 6, but I urge them to consider new clause 13. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who was not persuaded in Committee, has now been persuaded to change his mind. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber. He has been promoted to the ranks of the silent ones and is no longer a Minister. No doubt he will be a valuable heavyweight asset in the Government's Whips Office. After last night, they need him. I am sure he will do a first-class job.
	I am also glad that the current Minister is persuaded. Young people of 14 are much more amenable to training in the responsible use of weapons. It is important that they learn how to use weapons safely. Such lessons stay with them for the rest of their lives. Those of us who shoot regularly know that those people who were taught when they were young are much safer than many people who shoot at a later stage of their lives. The fact that young people can now use those weapons under restriction and supervision is a great step forward.
	New clause 13 would be one further step forward for the Minister. Having allowed younger people to use weapons under supervision, there will be an awful logistical problem of getting them from A to B. If someone lives in a village and has permission to shoot on land outside it, he will have to be escorted there by an adult who will have to wait for him to return. That could be early in the morning or late at night when it would not be an attractive proposition. That will cause young people serious problems and put off many who would otherwise want to learn how to use such weapons at an early age.
	The new clause is not a huge step forward and I hope that the Minister will think about it. Even if she says no tonight, perhaps the subject can be dealt with in another place.

Kate Hoey: I welcome the Government's change of mind since Second Reading and thank the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), for his willingness to listen to the shooting organisations. The Government have taken a sensible step and one that is necessary if we are to ensure that we continue our success in shooting sports at the Olympic games.
	The International Olympic Committee is supportive of shooting. When we bid for the games in London, the IOC may well consider how we intend to ensure that people get the opportunity to shoot, because many people who compete in the pentathlon, the triathlon and other sports started by using air weapons. There is a similar problem with the pistol ban, and our pistol shooters have to go abroad to train. There is a concern that if we do not do something about that and take a more flexible attitude, it could affect our bid for the games in London in 2012.
	I welcome Government amendment No. 3 and urge them to consider new clause 13, which I fully support. If there is no vote on the Opposition new clause, I hope that the Minister and Home Office officials will think about it. They must know that rejecting it is not reasonable. I also hope that the Lords will accept a similar amendment so that we have another chance to consider it. If we are acknowledging that it is reasonable to allow young people of 14, 15 and 16 to use airguns on private premises, it is nonsensical not to accept new clause 13.
	Airguns are not only used in rural areas. It is important that young people who are training for various sporting events can travel to clubs. Surely if we apply a commonsense approach to the problem we can find a way to allow an unaccompanied young person to carry an airgun in a public place while he or she goes to and from the premises where he or she may legitimately use it. New clause 13 overcomes that difficulty. It allows that to happen on the strict condition that the airgun is in a securely fastened gun cover and that the young person travels directly to the club from his or her home. The new clause seems sensible and I shall be most interested to hear the Minister explain why it is not.
	I do not support new clause 6, which calls for the licensing of weapons. The licensing system for other weapons hits the law-abiding decent shooter. The non-law-abiding nasty people in my constituency who go around murdering people would not dream of licensing their weapons. If we are honest, it is nonsense to think that we could possibly stop some of the illegitimate and terrible things that are caused by a small number of people who use weapons in an antisocial way. We cannot stop them by imposing another big bureaucracy that would cost a fortune, when the police cannot enforce the existing law.
	I sometimes wish that Members who have a knee-jerk response to air weapons and issues related to guns would spend time in a shooting club with people who shoot and who have shot all their lives. They would see young people showing the greatest discipline when they shoot. I do not want to go over the Second Reading debate again, but if they saw young people in a disciplined situation they would realise that the best way to prevent antisocial behaviour is through education. That is exactly what the Home Office said a few years ago. Unfortunately, it seems to have changed its mind.
	I thank the current Minister and the previous Minister for agreeing to the change and for tabling Government amendment No. 3. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to new clause 13, because their amendment does not make sense without it.

Mark Francois: The hon. Lady has a particular perspective on such matters both as a former Minister for Sport and as someone who has a considerable amount of gun crime in her constituency. She is able to see both sides of the argument. With that experience, does she agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that in this instance hard cases could make bad law?

Kate Hoey: There is concern about some horrible incidents. I do not belittle anything that has happened in hon. Members' constituencies, but sometimes what seems the simplest way to do something is not the best way. That is why we need new clause 13 if we are serious about allowing our young people to have a future at Olympic games and world championships and to have the opportunity to represent their country in what is an incredibly disciplined and good sport.

Jonathan R Shaw: Hon. Members have presented reasonable cases for both sides of the argument in promoting their views on whether there should be further restrictions on firearms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) advocates, or fewer restrictions, as some Conservative Members advocate. A powerful argument can be presented either way. It can be argued that it is reasonable for a young lad who lives on a farm to shoot rats in a barn or rabbits. As he lives in a rural area, he poses no danger. If we took a straw poll in Chatham high street and asked whether that should be allowed, most people would say, "Absolutely. What are the Government on about?"
	Equally, however, another case can be made. I wrote to 100 regional newspapers when I put a Bill together last year and became aware of the scores of incidents that occur. So it is also possible to ask whether it is reasonable for children below the age of 17 to be supervised if they are to use potentially deadly weapons. Both those arguments are reasonable. We need to drill down a bit, and find out who are the persistent offenders. They are youngsters under 17, they are mainly boys and they live in the inner city. Most incidents occur in the summer holidays, and their number is increasing. In 1997, there were 7,000 incidents, but in 2000–01 there were more than 10,000. I do not want to rehearse the debates that we had on Second Reading or when discussing my private Member's Bill, but those incidents are clearly rising and many of our constituents are concerned about them. It therefore behoves us to find a way to improve the situation, and it is reasonable to argue that 14 is too low an age limit.

James Paice: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's tremendous commitment on this issue. He referred to the increasing number of incidents, and I accept that that is the case. However, is he aware of the reverse statistic? The number of prosecutions for carrying a loaded air weapon in a public place has fallen consistently year on year since 1996 and is now about 60 per cent. of what it was then. The law has not changed, so it seems odd that, at a time when the number of incidents is rising, there are fewer prosecutions. That makes me wonder whether it is the law that is at fault or, as I prefer to believe, the way in which it is enforced.

Jonathan R Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what 60 per cent. represents?

James Paice: I am sorry, I was trying to be brief. There were 575 prosecutions in 1996, and the latest figures for 2001 show that that number fell to 360.

Jonathan R Shaw: I applaud the good work that the police are doing, but millions of these weapons are in circulation, and their nature means that that is covert, making detection difficult. We welcome the reduction in prosecutions, but that does not mean that 14-year-olds should be able to use those weapons. The Opposition believe that the Government should support new clause 13, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to stand her ground. A young person may go to a club such as the pony club mentioned by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) to use potentially lethal weapons. It is therefore important that parents be responsible for ensuring that their children are taken to such places to use those weapons.

Kate Hoey: Is my hon. Friend aware that our gold medallist in the pentathlon in the Sydney Olympics started off at a pony club and did all her work and shooting there? Does he understand the impact of the provision on our shooting prospects at the next Olympics, or does he not care?

Jonathan R Shaw: Of course I care about our prospects at the Olympics and opportunities for our young people. However, we are in a situation in which hundreds of people are losing their eyes or their lives. I shall not ask my hon. Friend whether she cares about those people, because I know that she does. We need to strike a balance. My hon. Friend should not throw those emotive arguments at me—of course I am concerned and want young people to do well.

Kate Hoey: How do they travel?

Jonathan R Shaw: That is a reasonable question. We are talking about rural areas. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said that he lived in a huge constituency and, in such cases, an appropriate place to shoot is not just down the road but miles away. It is likely therefore that the young person will be taken there by a parent. The key issue is whether that young person is going to a club or not, and I am concerned about the constable's ability to make that judgment. Our constables and police officers need clarity, but new clause 13 is ambiguous.

Laura Moffatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue of whether a parent or a responsible adult accompanies a young person to their club is very much about support for that young person? In many ways, it is about protecting and assisting that young person to undertake the legitimate activity of target shooting. We must make sure that parents are responsible for ensuring that their children travel to and from those clubs safely and easily, thus encouraging them in their shooting activities.

Jonathan R Shaw: I rarely disagree with anything that my hon. Friend says. If a young person succeeds at a particular event at a sporting venue, 99 per cent. of the time their parents will be there. I do not believe that the problem will arise, but the key issue is the ambiguity created by new clause 13.
	The majority of offences are committed by youngsters under 17 in the summer holidays, generally in inner-city areas, which is why I support the Government's proposals, which are very similar to those in my Bill. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Minister said about premises, about which I was concerned and which I discussed with her. Again, I did not want any ambiguity. I should be grateful if she addressed that, as police officers on the ground should not have to deal with an ambiguous provision. She mentioned the £1,000 fine for firing outside premises, which is welcome, as we should all condemn people who use these weapons in an antisocial way to cause injury, whether to humans or wildlife. Ten thousand cats are killed, injured or maimed every year, and there are many other worrying statistics. Such incidents should not take place, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, but sadly they do, and we need to act. I therefore welcome the proposals in the Bill.

Caroline Flint: It is clear that weapons of all kinds are lethal in the wrong hands, and air guns, of whatever type, in the wrong hands can be lethal, as has been demonstrated by my hon. Friends. In our amendments and the Bill, we are trying to find a way to deal with hon. Members' concerns, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) acknowledged that we have gone some way towards meeting the concerns that he raised in his private Member's Bill. However, at the same time, we recognise that for a number of people shooting is a legitimate sport. It is not one that I have ever done or am particularly attracted to, but it is a sport that people pursue legally without harming anybody at all. We are therefore trying to strike a balance.
	Amendment (a) would extend liability for the new offence to whoever had lent the young person his weapon. I accept that that might be useful in adding a further incentive to all concerned to act responsibly, and I have given considerable thought to the proposal. However, there are concerns about how we would make it effective. As has already been said, a licence is not required for such weapons, so proving ownership may make it difficult to pursue the issue of liability.
	Even where a lender of a weapon had gone to great pains to explain to a young person that they must not shoot beyond the premises, it is not a requirement for the lender to be present when the weapon is being used, and it could therefore be argued that it would be unfair to hold him responsible for the young person's offence. In cases where a lender had not instructed the young person in that way, it would be difficult for the police to prove otherwise. Although I was initially sympathetic to the amendment, it would be difficult to implement.
	On new clause 13, I listened carefully to the arguments from hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I am not convinced. The new clause would provide a further exception to the requirement for young people to be supervised when in possession of an air weapon. The main effect would be to allow 14 to 16-year-olds to carry unloaded air weapons without supervision when travelling to or from their home or shooting club, or when crossing public land on the way to shooting on private premises.
	The issue of carriage was raised in Committee. I know that shooting organisations are concerned that requiring supervision when travelling to and from clubs and shooting events would unduly hinder the activities of legitimate shooters. The law already provides exceptions to the requirement for adult supervision where a young person has an air weapon because he is a member of an approved shooting club, or uses it at a shooting gallery. We have listened to the concerns of hon. Members and of shooting organisations and have tabled amendments Nos. 3 to 7 and 9, which provide a further exception for young people who shoot on private land. However, I am not persuaded that yet another exception is justified. I can think of no compelling argument for allowing 14-year-olds to carry weapons around in public without the supervision of an adult.
	The requirement for the weapon to be unloaded and carried in a secure gun cover is superficially attractive, but would be open to abuse. What is there to stop young people taking weapons out of their covers, using them and then, having disposed of any remaining pellets, replacing them in the cover before an approaching policeman can challenge them? Even if the young person had no pellets with him, the weapon could easily be removed from its case and used to intimidate others. Also, there is nothing to stop other young people seizing the weapon and using it to intimidate others.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) rightly pointed out, it is not unreasonable to expect a parent or another adult to supervise a young shooter who is going to shoot on private premises or at an approved club. Millions of parents every week support their children in their sporting activities.
	New clause 6, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), approaches the problem of air weapon misuse by requiring more of these weapons to be held on firearms certificates granted by the police. The vast majority of air weapons are not powerful enough to fall within the existing certification process. However, there are arrangements requiring a certificate for high-powered air weapons, which pose a particular danger to the public. Such weapons have been designated as "specially dangerous" in the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969. Under those rules, a certificate is required in order to hold an air pistol with a muzzle energy of 6 foot-pounds or about 8 joules, or any other air weapon with a muzzle energy of 12 foot-pounds or about 16 joules.
	The new clause would significantly lower these thresholds to 5.42 joules. It would also remove the differentiation between air pistols and other air weapons. As a result, the new clause would bring many more types of air weapon into the certification process. When considering how to tackle airgun misuse, we considered whether to introduce some form of licensing regime for air weapons. We decided against that course of action because we felt it would be a disproportionate and costly reaction to the problem. I acknowledge that, as my hon. Friend mentioned, some police forces have joined local authorities in demanding that, but it was contrary to the advice that we received from the Association of Chief Police Officers. Rather than set up a costly licensing scheme that would penalise legitimate shooters, we felt it was better to target the small but significant minority of people who misuse their weapons. That is what the measures in the Bill seek to achieve.
	Amendments Nos. 70 to 73 would restrict the proposed ban on air weapons that use the self-contained gas cartridge system to those with a barrel length of less than 30 cm or to those that are less than 60 cm long—in common parlance, to handguns only. Furthermore, the ban would apply only in respect of such weapons that were readily convertible to fire ammunition that uses the force of gunpowder or other explosive material to discharge a missile. Those conditions not only apply to the specific provision to ban self-contained gas cartridge systems as set out in clause 44(3), but to the general order-making power in subsection (6).
	I remind the House why we are seeking to introduce stricter controls on specially dangerous air weapons. It is not because we want to ban a wide range of air weapons to make life difficult for legitimate users; it is because certain types of weapons are being converted and used in an increasing number of violent criminal acts, including murder and attempted murder. It is true that these conversions currently involve ammunition that uses some kind of explosive charge. It is also true that pistols and revolvers are currently the weapons of choice. But we must be mindful of the sort of people who want to use guns in a criminal way. They will always be on the lookout for an alternative source of weapons if one source is closed off. It is vital that we have flexible powers that allow us to address any new designs.
	As regards amendment No. 74, it is interesting that people are willing to give the Secretary of State an extremely wide power to remove any weapons or ammunition from the list of prohibited weapons, but are less prepared to see any additions, even though those must be limited to air weapons that are considered to be specially dangerous. I am aware that the present restrictions have caused some difficulties, but that is more appropriately addressed in the context of the review of firearms legislation generally, which we have promised.
	In the context of the clause, we have tried to meet the concerns of many hon. Members with different points of view. We have restricted the use of air guns. Through the provision for a fine, we have tried to make it clear that people who, in their back yard or garden or on a piece of land, fire beyond the boundaries of that area will be liable for a fine of up to £1,000. I should make it clear that for those under the age of 16, that would apply to their parents, as is the case with other fines. Air weapons are not toys. Considerable thought is required when they are used by children aged 14 to 17.
	We have tried to reach a balance. I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn and the clause supported.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendments made: No. 4, in page 34, line 37, leave out 'and'.
	No. 5, in page 34, line 38, at end insert—
	'( ) in the entry relating to section 23(1) in the second column for "14" substitute "17",
	( ) after that entry insert—
	"Section 23(4)
	Person under 17 making improper use of air weapon on private premises.
	Summary
	A fine of level 3 on the standard scale.
	Paragraphs 7 and 8 of Part II of this Schedule apply.",
	and
	( ) in the entry relating to section 24(4) in the second column for "14" substitute "17".'
	No. 6, in page 34, line 40, leave out 'omit "or (5)",' and insert—
	'for "22(4) or (5), 23(1)" substitute "22(4), 23(1) or (4)",'.
	No. 7, in page 34, line 41, leave out
	'", (4) or (5)" substitute "or (4)".' and insert
	'"22(3), (4) or (5), 23(1)" substitute "22(3) or (4), 23(1) or (4)".'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 44
	 — 
	Prohibition of Certain Air Weapons

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 35, leave out line 9.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 48
	 — 
	Penalty Notices in Respect of Graffiti or Fly-Posting

Hazel Blears: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 38, line 18, at end insert—
	'(2A) In the case of a relevant offence falling within section 49(1)(f), an authorised officer may not give a notice to a person under subsection (1) in relation to the display of an advertisement unless he has reason to believe that that person personally affixed or placed the advertisement to, against or upon the land or object on which the advertisement is or was displayed.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
	Amendment No. 29, in page 42, line 9, clause 54, at end insert—
	'In paragraph (b) of Section 88(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 after 'penalty' insert 'and repairs any damage caused'.
	Amendment No. 80, in page 42, line 9, at end insert—
	'( ) Schedule 4 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 to be amended as follows:
	(a) at the end of paragraph 3(3) insert "and by way of demand make a charge to cover the local authority's cost of removing, transportation, storage and delivery".
	(b) after paragraph 3(4) insert—
	( ) "when the owner of a shopping or luggage trolley refuses to accept the return of any such trolley the local authority shall by way of demand charge the owner of such a trolley for the cost of removing, transportation, storage and disposal".'.
	Government new clause 14—Graffiti removal notices.
	Government new clause 15—Exemption from liability in relation to graffiti removal notices.

Hazel Blears: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) had to leave the Chamber so cannot move his amendments Nos. 27 and 28. Those amendments were inappropriate. He sought to attach fixed penalty notices to the powers to close noisy premises. Fixed penalty notices are designed to provide an immediate response to low-level antisocial behaviour. If the situation in commercial premises has deteriorated to the extent that closure is contemplated, a fixed penalty notice would not be appropriate.
	The power set out in clause 46 enables senior environmental health officers to close noisy pubs and clubs. Amendment No. 27 would automatically associate the issuing of a fixed penalty notice with the exercise of that power. That is not a suitable response to the problem of noisy premises.
	I am sympathetic to the general principle behind amendments Nos. 28 and 29. They would place an additional punishment on the graffiti, litter or fly-posting offender, requiring him or her to repair any damage caused, in addition to receiving the notice. The Government are keen to enhance the role of reparation and restorative justice in dealing with offenders. That is why reparation is one of the new purposes of sentencing set out in the Criminal Justice Bill. It is important that offenders put right the damage that they have done, wherever that is practical. They should do so for an individual victim, if that is what the victim wants, or for the wider community, as with antisocial behaviour such as graffiti.
	However, the amendments would oblige a local authority to require an offender to repair damage in every case and could thereby create a number of practical problems relating to supervision and access to premises that may be dangerous. Should a local authority officer feel that it is more appropriate to require that damages be repaired than to issue a fixed penalty notice, there is always an option to take matters to court, where such an order could be made if it was felt to be appropriate.
	Amendment No. 80, which relates to clause 54, increases the powers available to local authorities to deal with fly tipping, including powers to stop, search and seize vehicles and to investigate incidents. Those are very welcome powers, as fly tipping is a huge problem for communities. The amendment seeks not to change the purpose of the clause, but to give local authorities greater powers to charge owners for removal, transportation, storage and delivery of abandoned trolleys. The amendment appears to apply to clause 54 because it already amends a provision of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in respect of the way in which fly tipping is investigated and prosecuted.
	The proposal relating to shopping or luggage trolleys seeks to provide that local authorities can charge owners of abandoned trolleys the cost of removal, transportation, storage and delivery when they refuse to accept the return of their property. I am told that supermarket owners often refuse to accept the return of property as the sum that they are charged is almost equivalent to the cost of a new trolley. I sympathise with the amendment, as we need to ensure that trolleys that are collected and delivered to their owners are accepted by them, but I cannot support it at this stage. It would have a financial impact on supermarkets and trolley owners, and could also have an impact on local authorities, which would be required to administer the provision.
	We would like more time to consider the proposal and perhaps to carry out consultations about its impact, but I am certainly attracted to the principle that owners should be responsible for the environmental damage caused by wayward trolleys. The recent practice of imposing a £1 charge has been successful in ensuring that trolleys are returned. I shall ask my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who are responsible for legislation relating to abandoned shopping trolleys, to consider what might be done about the issue.
	Government amendments Nos. 24 to 26 are technical and add a further relevant offence to the list already established in clause 49. Where there has been a contravention of town and country planning advertisement regulations but the offence is fairly minor, the person displaying and affixing the advertisement will be brought within the ambit of the fixed penalty notice regime. I think that such a provision is an appropriate addition to the Bill.
	Government new clauses 14 and 15 owe a great deal to the useful debate that took place in Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for her tenacity, determination and commitment in trying to ensure that her proposals were accepted. I know how passionately she feels about the issue and how much such action is supported by our constituents throughout the country. We have all seen the way in which cable boxes, bus shelters and railway sidings attract graffiti, and yet local authorities do not have a clear remit to clean it up. Local authorities that act responsibly and clean graffiti from property that does not belong to them are in the ridiculous position of being open to prosecution. In some cases, they are not willing to take such steps, the graffiti is not cleaned up, the public do not understand why their local representatives cannot intervene and there is huge frustration and anger all round.
	The new clauses allow councils to take action on behalf of their communities. They enable local authorities to serve a graffiti removal notice on the persons responsible for the property covered in graffiti. If they do not remove it, the local authority can lawfully intervene and clean it up. The authority will be protected from damages claims so long as it exercises due care and attention—a perfectly reasonable provision.
	Chronic graffiti, fly posting, litter and noisy premises lead to an area becoming more run down, with a corresponding increase in crime and fear of crime. They undermine much of our regeneration agenda in local communities. Powers in the Bill to tackle offenders are clear and appropriate to the nature of the offence. The new clauses complement the powers in the rest of the Bill that are aimed at offenders who cause graffiti by freeing up authorities that are currently frustrated by their inability to tackle persistent eyesores that have a detrimental effect on their communities.
	I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friends for raising this extremely important issue in Committee and pressing the Government to take action on it. I understand that the new clauses might not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden would have wanted in terms of charging. We have been concerned about the possible costs, but I say to her that, although we are not currently minded to accept the precise proposals that she made, we want to consider the matter further. I want to make it clear that we are not rejecting the proposals out of hand; we simply want to ensure that any costs are proportionate. I can therefore give her some further room for optimism about the clause.
	Concerns have been expressed to me about the noise provisions in clause 47. Several hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), have asked whether the clause will apply to fireworks. I am pleased to tell her that it will apply to them in the context of domestic noise, subject to a fixed penalty notice of £100.

Shona McIsaac: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that point, which I had warned her about. I know that many hundreds of hon. Members will be pleased that it has been put on record that the noise provisions in the Bill relate to fireworks. That will give some comfort to the many constituents who are faced with excessive noise caused by the abuse and misuse of fireworks. I thank her for putting that assurance on the record.

Hazel Blears: I am well aware that my hon. Friend, together with every other hon. Member in the Chamber, has been campaigning about fireworks. Petitions have been signed by hundreds and thousands of our constituents whose lives have been made a misery by the inappropriate use of fireworks. My hon. Friends will know that a private Member's Bill is under consideration that will introduce considerable controls in respect of firework use. None the less, I am delighted to confirm that the domestic noise provisions in the Bill before us are an additional measure allowing action to be taken.
	I commend the Government amendments and new clauses to the House. They will make a significant contribution to ensuring that our areas are clean and pleasant places for people to live in and that we will begin to tackle once and for all the scourge of graffiti, litter, fly posting and fly tipping, which have caused all our constituents a great deal of concern and undermined much of our regeneration programme. The environment in which we live dictates the behaviour of people in our communities, and I am delighted that we are making significant progress on tackling those issues, which are of prime importance to those communities.

James Paice: I want to be extremely brief, as I would like to think that we will have a minute or two to debate the last group of amendments.
	The Government amendments are largely welcome. I am pleased that the Minister spoke about the cost impact of the proposals in Government new clauses 14 and 15. We all want to see the end of graffiti. At least, without being over-optimistic, we want it to be removed as quickly as possible, but we must bear it in mind that the property owner sometimes has no way of preventing graffiti from arising. Yes, we would like it to be removed as quickly as possible, so I accept the powers given to local authorities in new clause 14. None the less, we do not want to add unnecessary and unavoidable costs for property owners, whether they are commercial operations, public institutions or private owners. If they can find ways of preventing graffiti from being applied to their property, that is fine, but we would all accept that they cannot always do so, so I welcome the Minister's reluctance to go quite as far as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) would have liked in that respect.
	The only other issue that I want to mention is that of shopping trolleys. For the life of me, I have never understood why British supermarkets do not use the practice that French hypermarkets have used for years, with returnable coin deposits.

Shona McIsaac: Some do.

James Paice: Yes, I recognise that it is beginning to happen, but I cannot remember when it did not happen in France. I do not understand why it has not crossed the Channel more frequently, because it seems to be the obvious way of preventing the problem of dumped shopping trolleys, which we all recognise is an eyesore that causes blockages in rivers, streams, drains and so forth. The Minister is right to resist the amendment, but I hope that the supermarkets can deal with the matter directly and that that is perhaps beginning to happen. I certainly would not oppose the Government amendments.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank the Government for introducing new clauses 14 and 15. The issues that we have discussed today mean more to most of our constituents than almost anything else we ever discuss. It is not a party political issue, but a political issue in the widest sense. Unless we can reduce antisocial behaviour, at whatever level—from graffiti and fly tipping to youths gathering on street corners—we will see a decline in participation in our communities and in voting, because it will seem that we can do the big things, but we cannot allow people to feel safe in their own homes and environments. We must not raise people's expectations when we do not expect or intend to meet them.
	What worries me about new clauses 14 and 15 is that they give local authorities another power that they will not and cannot use. That is what happened with the well-intentioned Environmental Protection Act 1990. I appreciate that that was introduced with the best of intentions, but it did not give local authorities the weapons truly to improve the environment. Unless we say that organisations—large privatised utilities and statutory undertakings—can and should pay to have the graffiti removed from their buildings, we will make no progress. Why should the elderly lady who is just managing to pay her council tax have to remove that graffiti? New clauses 14 and 15 say, in effect, that as council tax payers we and our constituents have not only to look after our own homes, but to look after those of everybody else as well. At some point, those in the big companies with multi-million pound budgets that festoon us with brochures and receptions should pay to remove the graffiti on the sub-station in the road where they never live.
	I say thank you to the Government, but we need to be able to use these powers and for people to see a difference. If we do not, people will disengage from all the processes of civic society. It is that important.

Matthew Green: We add our support to the Government amendments and new clauses. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made a good case for passing the burden of cost on to statutory undertakings. That is a matter that the Government should seriously consider. There is a danger that, with their budgets under pressure, the power may be one that councils want, but cannot afford, to use. We need to ensure, one way or another, that councils are not prevented from using it by the burden of cost.
	The other amendments in the group, which are Labour Back-Bench amendments, are well intentioned, but none of them would work in practice. We all understand the issue of shopping trolleys. The returnable deposit may be the solution in the short and the long term. One of the difficulties with amendment No. 80 is that it refers to recovering the cost of destroying shopping trolleys. From an environmental point of view, we do not want supermarket trolleys to be destroyed, whoever is paying for it: we want them to be continually reused for the purpose for which they are intended. The deposit scheme would achieve that.
	The Government amendments solve some of the problems that existed in the Bill in relation to graffiti. We particularly welcome amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26, which clarify exactly who gets the fixed penalty notice when fly posting occurs. As regards people from a commercial organisation fly posting or sticking leaflets on windscreens, in effect littering the place, concern was expressed in Committee that a £40 or £50 fine will not deter such an organisation from doing that. Amendment No. 24 makes it clear that the fine applies to the person who carries it out, which will hopefully deter them. Perhaps there will be other legislation to deter companies in other ways.
	This is a welcome group of Government amendments and new clauses, and they certainly have our support.

Valerie Davey: I want briefly to thank the Minister for her positive response to amendment No. 80. Bristol city council and councils around the country will be encouraged that the Government are showing this level of interest. Everyone understands the problem but has no answer to it. I alert the Government to the fact that the deposit scheme for trolleys is not the answer. It is fairly widespread in Bristol, but trolleys are still dumped. For example, 18 were recovered from 20 m of a stream. People simply dump them and take the deposit money out. It is not the answer. I accept the Minister's confirmation that it needs further investigation and again welcome the Government's response.

Vincent Cable: I, too, want to speak strongly in support of the amendments and the spirit behind them, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is not here, and to endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). Graffiti is the bane of many of our constituencies. About four years ago, I secured an Adjournment debate on the subject. I was told, and I certainly claimed, that it was the first debate on graffiti that we had ever had in this House, and it proved an extraordinarily popular undertaking.
	Amendment agreed to.
	It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day.]

Clause 49
	 — 
	Meaning of Relevant Offence

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 39, line 17, at end insert—
	'(f) an offence under section 224(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8) (displaying advertisement in contravention of regulations).'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 52
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 40, line 32, at end insert—
	'"advertisement" and "land" have the meanings given by section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8),'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

New Clause 14
	 — 
	Graffiti Removal Notices

'(1) This section applies where a local authority is satisfied—
	(a) that a relevant surface in an area has been defaced by graffiti, and
	(b) that the defacement is detrimental to the amenity of the area or is offensive.
	(2) The authority may serve a notice (a "graffiti removal notice") upon any person who is responsible for the surface imposing the requirement mentioned in subsection (3).
	(3) That requirement is a requirement that the defacement be removed, cleared or otherwise remedied within a period specified in the notice being not less than 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served.
	(4) If the requirement mentioned in subsection (3) is not complied with, the authority or any person authorised by the authority may remove, clear or otherwise remedy the defacement.
	(5) In exercising the power under subsection (4) the authority or any person authorised by the authority may enter any land to the extent reasonably necessary for that purpose.
	(6) Subject to subsection (7), section 160 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) has effect in relation to graffiti removal notices as if they were notices within subsection (2) of that section.
	(7) Where after reasonable enquiry a local authority is unable to ascertain the name or proper address of any person who is responsible for a relevant surface, the authority may—
	(a) affix a graffiti removal notice to the surface, and
	(b) enter any land to the extent reasonably necessary for that purpose;
	and that notice shall be treated as having been served upon a person responsible for the surface.
	(8) In this section a "relevant surface" is any of the following surfaces, whether internal or external or open to the air or not—
	(a) the surface of any street or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any street;
	(b) the surface of any land owned, occupied or controlled by a statutory undertaker or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any such land;
	(c) the surface of any land owned, occupied or controlled by an educational institution (including its governing body) or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any such land.
	(9) But a surface is not a relevant surface unless—
	(a) in the case of a surface within subsection (8)(a), the street is public land;
	(b) in the case of a surface within subsection (8)(b) or (c)—
	(i) the land is public land,
	(ii) the surface is visible from public land, or
	(iii) the surface is otherwise visible to members of the public using the services or facilities of the statutory undertaker or educational institution in question or any other statutory undertaker or educational institution.
	(10) A person is responsible for a relevant surface if—
	(a) where it is the surface of any land (including a street), he owns, leases, occupies, controls, operates or maintains the land, and
	(b) where it is the surface of any other thing mentioned in subsection (8), he owns, leases, occupies, controls, operates or maintains the thing.
	(11) In this section and in section (Exemption from liability in relation to graffiti removal notices)—
	"educational institution" has the meaning given by section 98(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43),
	"graffiti" includes painting, writing, soiling, marking or other defacing by whatever means,
	"local authority" means an authority in England and Wales which is a litter authority for the purposes of section 88 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43),
	"proper address" is to be read in accordance with section 160(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43),
	"public land" means land to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access with or without payment (including any street to which the public are so entitled or permitted),
	"statutory undertaker" has the meaning given by section 98(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43),
	"street" has the meaning given by section 48(1) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (c. 22).'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15
	 — 
	Exemption from Liability in Relation to Graffiti Removal Notices

'(1) None of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) is to have any liability for damages or otherwise (whether at common law or otherwise) arising out of anything done or omitted to be done in the exercise or purported exercise of—
	(a) the power under subsection (4) of section (Graffiti removal notices) (including as provided for in subsection (5) of that section), or
	(b) the power under subsection (7) of that section.
	(2) Those persons are—
	(a) in the case of the power mentioned in subsection (1)(a)—
	(i) the local authority and any employee of the authority, and
	(ii) any person authorised by the authority under section (Graffiti removal notices) (4) and the employer or any employee of that person, and
	(b) in the case of the power mentioned in subsection (1)(b), the local authority and any employee of the authority.
	(3) Subsection (1) does not apply—
	(a) if the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith;
	(b) to liability arising out of a failure to exercise due care and attention;
	(c) so as to prevent an award of damages made in respect of an act or omission on the ground that the act or omission was unlawful by virtue of section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42);
	(d) to liability that any person mentioned in subsection (2) may have to any employee of his.
	(4) This section does not affect any other exemption from liability (whether at common law or otherwise).'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 16
	 — 
	Power to Remove Trespassers: Alternative Site Available

'After section 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) insert—
	"62A Power to remove trespassers: alternative site available
	(1) If the senior police officer present at a scene reasonably believes that the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied in relation to a person and land, he may direct the person—
	(a) to leave the land;
	(b) to remove any vehicle and other property he has with him on the land.
	(2) The conditions are—
	(a) that the person and one or more others ("the trespassers") are trespassing on the land;
	(b) that the trespassers have between them at least one vehicle on the land;
	(c) that the trespassers are present on the land with the common purpose of residing there for any period;
	(d) if it appears to the officer that the person has one or more caravans in his possession or under his control on the land, that there is a pitch on a relevant caravan site for that caravan or each of those caravans;
	(e) that the occupier of the land or a person acting on his behalf has asked the police to remove the trespassers from the land.
	(3) A direction under subsection (1) may be communicated to the person to whom it applies by any constable at the scene.
	(4) In this section—
	"caravan" and "caravan site" have the same meanings as in Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960;
	"relevant caravan site" means a caravan site which is—
	(a) situated in the area of a local authority within whose area the land is situated, and
	(b) managed by a relevant site manager;
	"relevant site manager" means—
	(a) a local authority within whose area the land is situated;
	(b) a registered social landlord;
	"registered social landlord" means a body registered as a social landlord under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996.
	(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend the definition of "relevant site manager" in subsection (4) by adding a person or description of person.
	(6) An order under subsection (5) must be made by statutory instrument and is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.
	—[Mr. Heppell]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17
	 — 
	Failure to Comply With Direction: Offences

'After section 62A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (inserted by section (Power to remove trespassers: alternative site available)) insert—
	"62B Failure to comply with direction under section 62A: offences
	(1) A person commits an offence if he knows that a direction under section 62A(1) has been given which applies to him and—
	(a) he fails to leave the relevant land as soon as reasonably practicable, or
	(b) he enters any land in the area of the relevant local authority as a trespasser before the end of the relevant period with the intention of residing there.
	(2) The relevant period is the period of 3 months starting with the day on which the direction is given.
	(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or both.
	(4) A constable in uniform who reasonably suspects that a person is committing an offence under this section may arrest him without a warrant.
	(5) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show—
	(a) that he was not trespassing on the land in respect of which he is alleged to have committed the offence, or
	(b) that he had a reasonable excuse—
	(i) for failing to leave the relevant land as soon as reasonably practicable, or
	(ii) for entering land in the area of the relevant local authority as a trespasser with the intention of residing there, or
	(c) that, at the time the direction was given, he was under the age of 18 years and was residing with his parent or guardian.".'.
	—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18
	 — 
	Failure to Comply With Direction: Seizure

(1) 'After section 62B of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (inserted by section (Failure to comply with direction: offences)) insert—
	"62C Failure to comply with direction under section 62A: seizure
	(1) This section applies if a direction has been given under section 62A(1) and a constable reasonably suspects that a person to whom the direction applies has, without reasonable excuse—
	(a) failed to remove any vehicle on the relevant land which appears to the constable to belong to him or to be in his possession or under his control; or
	(b) entered any land in the area of the relevant local authority as a trespasser with a vehicle before the end of the relevant period with the intention of residing there.
	(2) The relevant period is the period of 3 months starting with the day on which the direction is given.
	(3) The constable may seize and remove the vehicle."
	(2) In section 67(1) (retention and charges for seized vehicles) after "section 62(1)" insert ", 62C(3)".'.
	—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 19
	 — 
	Common Land: Modifications

'After section 62C of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (inserted by section (Failure to comply with direction: seizure)) insert—
	"62D Common land: modifications
	(1) In their application to common land sections 62A to 62C have effect with these modifications.
	(2) References to trespassing and trespassers have effect as if they were references to acts, and persons doing acts, which constitute—
	(a) a trespass as against the occupier, or
	(b) an infringement of the commoners' rights.
	(3) References to the occupier—
	(a) in the case of land to which the public has access, include the local authority and any commoner;
	(b) in any other case, include the commoners or any of them.
	(4) Subsection (1) does not—
	(a) require action by more than one occupier, or
	(b) constitute persons trespassers as against any commoner or the local authority if they are permitted to be there by the other occupier.
	(5) In this section "common land", "commoner" and "the local authority" have the meanings given by section 61."'
	—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20
	 — 
	Interpretation

'After section 62D of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (inserted by section (Common land: modifications)) insert—
	"62E Sections 62A to 62D: interpretation
	(1) Subsections (2) to (8) apply for the interpretation of sections 62A to 62D and this section.
	(2) "Land" does not include buildings other than—
	(a) agricultural buildings within the meaning of paragraphs 3 to 8 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, or
	(b) scheduled monuments within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.
	(3) "Local authority" means—
	(a) in Greater London, a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London;
	(b) in England outside Greater London, a county council, a district council or the Council of the Isles of Scilly;
	(c) in Wales, a county council or a county borough council.
	(4) "Occupier", "trespass", "trespassing" and "trespasser" have the meanings given by section 61 in relation to England and Wales.
	(5) "The relevant land" means the land in respect of which a direction under section 62A(1) is given.
	(6) "The relevant local authority" means—
	(a) if the relevant land is situated in the area of more than one local authority (but is not in the Isles of Scilly), the district council or county borough council within whose area the relevant land is situated;
	(b) if the relevant land is situated in the Isles of Scilly, the Council of the Isles of Scilly;
	(c) in any other case, the local authority within whose area the relevant land is situated.
	(7) "Vehicle" has the meaning given by section 61.
	(8) A person may be regarded as having a purpose of residing in a place even if he has a home elsewhere."'
	—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21
	 — 
	Aggravated Trespass

(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 68 (offence of aggravated trespass), in subsection (1) (which defines the offence by reference to trespass on land in the open air and lawful activity on land in the open air) omit "in the open air" in both places where those words appear.
	(3) In section 69 (powers to remove persons committing or participating in aggravated trespass), in subsection (1) (which confers the power by reference to trespass on land in the open air) omit "in the open air" in both places where those words appear.'—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22
	 — 
	Public Assemblies

'In section 16 of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) (which defines "public assembly" for the purposes of the power in section 14 of that Act to impose conditions on public assemblies), in the definition of "public assembly" for "20" substitute "2".'—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 3
	 — 
	Repeals

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 55, leave out lines 8 and 9.
	No. 79, in page 55, line 13, at end insert—
	'Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33)
	In section 68(1), "in the open air" in both places.
	In section 69(1), "in the open air" in both places.'
	No. 34, in page 55, column 2, leave out line 24 and insert—
	'In Schedule 6—
	(a) in paragraph 3(2), the words "and paragraph 4 below" and paragraph (e), and (b) paragraph 4.'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 57
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 43, line 6, after 'Act', insert
	'(other than subsections (8) to (10) of section 36)'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Clause 60
	 — 
	Extent

Amendment made: No. 78, in page 43, line 33, after '7' insert
	'and sections (Power to remove trespassers: alternative site available) to (Public assemblies)'—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I want to thank not only my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for their sterling efforts today, but my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and his colleagues who saw the Bill through Committee. I commend Members of all parties who served on the Committee for the extremely vigorous way in which the Bill was dealt with, especially by my own Back-Benchers who think that I am not going far enough. I should like them to write an article in The Independent newspaper explaining why I am not tough and courageous enough in dealing with these issues, which would undoubtedly change my image enormously overnight with its readers. I shall be brief, as I realise that the Third Reading debate is truncated owing to the very serious statement that has to be made afterwards, and I want other hon. Members to be able to take part.
	The truth of the Bill is that we can give people the powers to do the job—whether in housing, environmental health, the police service or local government more broadly—and we can encourage the local community to take up the issues and to be part of the solution, but unless the people who have the power at their disposal are prepared to use it, and unless the magistrates and district judges are prepared to enforce it, all of us in Committee and on the Floor of the House will have wasted our time.

Frank Field: The Bill, like similar legislation that my right hon. Friend has introduced, is crucial in dealing with the most fundamental changes occurring in our society. Does he agree that, while we can legislate, we need to see the measures enacted locally? I hope that, when the Bill goes to the Lords, my proposal for a pilot scheme for electing community prosecution officers will be seriously considered.

David Blunkett: I knew that my right hon. Friend would get that in. It is a very interesting idea. In regard to the pamphlet that I published a couple of weeks ago and the discussions that I have been having with the Attorney-General, it will undoubtedly feature in terms of how we lift the profile of prosecution and, above all, how we ensure that the voice of the community—not a vicious, reactionary, mob-rule voice—is heard on behalf of the victim and of those who face the scourge of antisocial behaviour.
	I appeal to magistrates to ensure that breaches of orders or of bail, and sheer antisocial actions within the courts, are dealt with decisively. There are so many examples now of action being taken. In the past, quite lengthy bureaucracy has been struggled through, local residents have patiently kept diaries and appealed to housing authorities to be decisive and to send the right signals to ensure that the message got across, yet when the case was brought, the defendant was patted on the head as though they were on a Sunday school outing. I am not talking about first-time offenders here. Of course we are all in favour of rehabilitation and restitution, and of ensuring that we give people a chance. We are in favour of preventive action and of intervention. The diversionary schemes that were so important over the holiday period last year worked, and could work again this summer.
	We are also going to send a message to the thugs and mindless vandals. We are going to send a message to those in Wrexham last night who were engaged in nothing but sheer mindless thuggery and antisocial behaviour, while trying to present a picture that they were somehow engaged in some activity to do with social cohesion. They were simply causing mayhem and disorder, and we will clamp down on them wherever and whenever such behaviour occurs. If everyone will join us—regardless of party, and without rancour or division—in getting this right, we can change that culture. We can change society back to create more orderly, less brutal and more acceptable neighbourhoods.
	The amendments that have gone through in Committee and today are a measure of improvement, whether they relate to housing and are linked to the Bill that will be taken through by my hon. Friends in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to residential orders, to the action on graffiti, or to unauthorised encampments.

Liz Blackman: rose—

John Denham: rose—

David Blunkett: My goodness me! Gender before beauty—no! I meant that I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) first.

Liz Blackman: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He has rightly pointed out that the Bill will not be worth the paper that it is written on unless its measures are enforced, and we all have a role to play in that. Could he just flesh out a little more what role the Government will play in that, because we have a lot to learn about the progress of antisocial behaviour orders? They are implemented in some areas of the country, but still not in others. How do we drive up the effective action of local partnerships in the areas in which these issues are not being taken seriously at the moment?

David Blunkett: Significant progress has been made. I think that about 1,000 orders have now been taken out, along with the interim orders, and progress is being made rapidly. I invite Members from all parties to make contact with the new antisocial behaviour unit, which is a cross-government operation headed by the tenacious Louise Casey, who makes one or two of my friends on the Back Benches look quite mild when dealing with these matters. Members should get in touch because we will be able to provide support, help, guidance and, above all, rigour in terms of what local people need.
	We are not just working with the agencies or the departments in local authorities; we are working with local neighbourhood groups such as neighbourhood watch and others. This will represent a new style for the Government. Yes, we are putting the powers in place, but we are also empowering people to be able to use them themselves. I think that that will make a difference.
	The moment I mentioned encampments, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) tried to intervene on me, and I promised to give way to him. I shall do so now.

John Denham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's introduction into the Bill of the measures on travellers. This will raise expectations in the country, so will he take this opportunity to stress that the new clauses will require implementation by the police and clear action by the local authorities to develop temporary camp sites, to enable the powers to be usable? The public need to expect the local authorities to take such action so that these welcome measures will have the effect that people want them to have.

David Blunkett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. He not only nurtured this issue because of his experience of it in his constituency; he also parented the early part of the Bill with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East. I thank him for that, and I want to ensure that the time that he spent and the work that he did will not be wasted.
	I would also like to mention aggravated trespass and police conditions on assemblies, because these measures will help us enormously in dealing with the so-called animal rights activists who are vandals and terrorists in their own right. I have to say that, sadly, many of them are also engaged in criminality to fund their activities. We may disagree on some of the detail in the Bill and on whether we shall be able to enforce everything in it. What none of us disagrees on, however, is that it is necessary to take this action.

James Paice: The Home Secretary has referred to the importance of the Bill, and he is absolutely right. It seeks to address an issue that is, as became obvious throughout the proceedings of the Committee, of great concern to every one of us, whichever part of the country or political party we represent. A number of provisions in the Bill have caused concern. I, too, want to thank the former Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and, indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who appeared once or twice during the proceedings, for the constructive way in which they addressed the Committee's proceedings and the amendments that we had tabled.
	I have been encouraged by today's results because, by my reckoning, there are at least eight separate areas in which the Government have come forward with amendments or new clauses addressing issues that we raised in Committee. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East gesticulates; I appreciate his having taken our points seriously. Many of those amendments are almost the same, word for word, as those that I tabled in Committee. Obviously, that gives me some pleasure. It also demonstrates that the Government have listened to our arguments, and I welcome that.
	I particularly want to refer to two of the issues that the Home Secretary has just mentioned. The first is the issue of travellers, to which the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) referred. We debated that at considerable length in Committee as a result of new clauses that I had tabled, and I very much welcome the two new clauses that the Government have tabled. Questions remain to be asked, however, which will need to be pursued in another place, particularly on the issue of alternative sites. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen referred to the importance of the police and local authorities playing their part in enforcing the legislation. I hope that the issue of alternative sites will not be a loophole that will mean that the whole clause cannot be properly put into effect. We shall need to pursue that matter in another place.
	The new provisions on aggravated trespass and assemblies, to which the Home Secretary also referred, are almost exactly the same, word for word, as those that I tabled in Committee, and I very much welcome them. The Home Secretary rightly condemned the so-called animal rights activists. This is not about the rights and wrongs of animal experimentation; it is about the ability of legitimate firms and their employees to go about their daily business without intimidation or threat.
	I welcome the Government's agreement to those amendments, which were suggested by the Bioindustry Association. I also welcome the measures that the Government have so far taken on airguns. I remain of the view that some of the other new clauses need further attention, and we will raise those matters in the other place.
	One of the themes throughout the debate in Committee, which was taken up again just now by the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), was enforcement. The Home Secretary referred to the fact that we can pass the legislation but others have to enforce it. On Second Reading, the Opposition's view was that much of the Bill was unnecessary, as we believed that many of the powers that the Government were providing already existed in different forms, and what was necessary was that they should be properly enforced. The Government have proceeded with the Bill and have introduced these powers, some of them with the amendments that I have described.
	It is absolutely clear that it does not matter how many powers are provided in legislation, unless all the forces of law and order are prepared to implement them effectively, our efforts are as nought. Although I remain of the view that some of the powers in the Bill are unnecessary, and that existing legislation, if properly enforced, could have dealt with the problems, I am extremely anxious that, having gone through this process, these powers in different sectors are properly enforced.
	I rarely, as a matter of practice, refer to detailed constituency affairs, but I want to mention a short letter received from the Crown Prosecution Service. I shall paraphrase it because I do not want the case to be identifiable. Two youths broke into school premises, and they were arrested and charged by Cambridgeshire police. The CPS has written to the head teacher of that secondary school and said that it will not prosecute those youths, because it believes that the resulting sentence is likely to be extremely light and thus would give the wrong signal to those who might commit such offences. I have written to the CPS asking what signal does it think that gives. I am happy to send the Home Secretary the text of the letter.
	Obviously, it would be wrong to identify the case at the present time, but it shows the uphill task that we face. The Home Secretary describes a world in which we can restore some semblance of law and order on our streets and deal with this low level crime of antisocial behaviour. It is a world in which people feel that their community belongs to them, not to the louts. If we are to achieve that, it will require everyone's best efforts.
	Despite our reservations, we believe that the Bill goes some way towards that goal. Therefore, we do not oppose it. Some provisions need to be improved, but we wish it well and, more importantly, we wish its enforcement well.

Simon Hughes: I associate myself with the tone of the contributions made by the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). We are all charged with finding a way to reduce antisocial behaviour and to create a society in which greater respect is shown by one person for another. We may have differences about how we achieve that, but that is certainly a common objective.
	I expressly share the Home Secretary's views about the events in Wrexham over the past couple of days, and I wish to associate myself with his comments on that subject. I commend the work of the police, who were confronted with an unacceptable series of events. I also commend the local elected representatives. I heard the mayor speak this morning, and he was clear that there was no justification for such lawless, unacceptable intolerance, especially as it was founded on a specious premise. That community has traditionally been happy, prosperous and settled. If it cannot, with understanding and compassion, accommodate a few people who have been accepted into the community, there is something severely wrong with the perpetrators of those crimes.
	The Home Secretary and his colleagues will know that my hon. Friends and I agree with some parts of the Bill, such as part 1 dealing with crack houses. Clearly, we all sign up to those proposals, and we need to get them right. We also welcome the proposals on firearms. It is important that we get a grip of the antisocial use of firearms in both urban and rural areas.
	Ministers will also appreciate that we have differences of principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), sought in Committee to put our amendments. They did not prevail, so we must ask ourselves whether, if we were in government, we would want the Bill on the statute book, and the answer is no, as there is still a lot to do to it. We will divide the House on Third Reading to register that view.
	We are concerned about the process that takes people too quickly from demoted tenancy to losing their house. We also think that it is entirely inappropriate for teachers or school staff to serve fixed penalty notices under part 3. The argument may be made for the director of education or the senior education welfare officer to do that, but it is not a job that should be given to teachers or to the people responsible for the welfare and support of children.

John Denham: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that his opposition to these measures is included in every Liberal Democrat leaflet that is given out up and down the country?

Simon Hughes: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my colleagues and I have been clear that antisocial behaviour, properly defined, is entirely unacceptable. However, we believe that the best method to deal with that is not increased, discriminatory, authoritarian powers, but a proactive, supportive approach. There should be alternative activities for young people, and more resources, more police, more community support officers and the rest. We have been clear that we support some measures but not others.
	We made clear our opposition to the powers to disperse groups, which we believe are unnecessary. There are many powers on the statute book that can be used. Many people outside the House share our view that these powers go far too far. The objection to the fixed penalty notices in part 5 is that the pilot has not yet finished and we have not seen the evidence. There is no case yet for extending that measure, let alone extending it to teenagers and to children aged 10 upwards. It is unacceptable that those who are least likely to pay or to be able to afford to pay, and against whom the measure is least likely to be enforced, should be subject to a new fine collecting system that has not been tried and tested.
	We accept some parts of the Bill, but it is entirely unacceptable that people of 16 or 17, who are adults, can go to work, pay taxes and serve their country, are not allowed to buy cans of spray paint that they can use legitimately.
	We have made our position clear. We will work with the Government, despite our differences in this place. We hope that the indication from the Home Secretary, from Ministers and from Conservative Front-Bench Members will be that further work will be done on the Bill in the House of Lords. We hope that, by the time that it ends its passage in the House of Lords, it will be a much better Bill. We will work to win by argument what we have not won today by vote. We hope that the Government realise that it is the positive, proactive alternatives that reduce crime and deal with the causes of crime. That was our view at the beginning; that remains our view now. We will continue to argue that view both today and during the remaining stages of the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 419, Noes 43.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Iraq (British Forces)

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I regret that I have to make a statement about two serious incidents involving British forces that took place in Iraq today.
	One incident occurred at about 7.30 this morning UK time, 10.30 local time. It involved members of the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who were conducting a routine patrol in the town of al Majarr al Kabir, about 25 kilometres south of the town of al Amarah, in the province of al Maysan. The two vehicles in which they were travelling were attacked with rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and rifle fire from a large number of Iraqi gunmen. British troops returned fire and called for assistance from other UK forces.
	A quick reaction force—including Scimitar vehicles, additional troops and a Chinook CH-47 helicopter—was dispatched to the scene to provide assistance. It also came under fire. A total of eight British personnel sustained injuries, one on the ground and seven in the helicopter. The casualties were taken initially to 202 field hospital, south-west of Basra. Two of them have since been transferred to a United States field hospital in Kuwait to receive specialist treatment for very serious injuries. The other six are being treated in 202 field hospital.
	Separately, the bodies of six British personnel, who appear to have been killed in another incident, were recovered from al Majarr al Kabir at about midday UK time. Those personnel were members of the Royal Military Police and had been engaged in training the local Iraqi police. Initial information suggests that they may have been involved in an incident at the police station in al Majarr al Kabir. I regret that at this stage, I am unable to provide any further details. British commanders are obviously investigating the situation as a matter of urgency.
	We are in the process of informing the next of kin of all those who have been killed or injured. I know that the House will want to join me in sending our condolences to these families. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Our thoughts are with them at this dreadful time.
	We are investigating whether there is any connection between the two incidents. British commanders in theatre are assessing the situation and have been in contact with local leaders. It would not be right to speculate further at this stage. I would certainly caution against reaching any wider conclusions about the overall security situation in southern Iraq, particularly in the United Kingdom's area of responsibility. Coalition forces have worked hard to secure Iraq in the aftermath of decisive combat operations. They will not be deflected from their efforts by the enemies of peace.

Bernard Jenkin: The House will be grateful for the trouble that the Secretary of State has taken to keep us informed. There is very little that anyone can add at this stage to the statement that he has made. This is clearly a tragedy for those involved, and the whole House will join the Secretary of State in expressing our deepest sympathies for those who were bereaved through, or injured in, the attacks. I can assure him that we agree that the next of kin must be the immediate priority. As he also said, it is too early to tell whether this signals a general worsening of the security situation in Iraq or is part of a pattern. In due course, the following questions will be asked. Were the attacks co-ordinated, and if so which organisation was behind them? Are we dealing with remnants of the regime, or were the attacks co-ordinated from outside Iraq?
	We have the best-trained and best-equipped troops to deal with threats such as this. This is a setback for them, but one that they will take in their stride. They will not be deflected from their mission to bring peace and security to the Iraqi people, and nor should we. All that I ask of the Secretary of State is that he give them all that they need to conduct operations as safely as possible, because that is no less than our armed forces so richly deserve.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations, and particularly for his thoughts on the families, who will be suffering severely this evening. I know that the whole House will join him in the observations that he has made.

Paul Keetch: May I, too, begin by thanking the Secretary of State for coming to the House so quickly? He kept us fully informed during the conflict, and he is right to come here this evening. May I also echo the tributes that have been paid to our armed forces, and pass on condolences from the Liberal Democrat Benches to the families and comrades of those who have lost their lives, and to the regiments? We also wish a full recovery to all those who have been injured. Our thoughts are with them and their families.
	These events show above all that we can never take the work of our armed forces for granted. The job that they are doing in Iraq is difficult and dangerous, and it is far from over. They continue to perform their task with great courage. Our thoughts are with them tonight.

Tam Dalyell: In these awful and tragic circumstances, is not part of the unpalatable truth that, whether we like it or not, the British forces, like the Americans, are perceived as less of a liberating force and more of an occupying army? In the circumstances, should we not make an urgent approach to the United Nations?

Geoff Hoon: Clearly, there has been a UN resolution in recent times, and it is important that we identify precisely who was responsible for the attacks before reaching such conclusions.

Annabelle Ewing: May I add my condolences and those of my Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru colleagues? Our thoughts are also with the families of the soldiers killed and injured in Iraq today. I urge the Secretary of State to do all he can to ensure that the families receive all possible support. As the Member for Perth, where Blackwatch has its regimental headquarters, I also urge him to do all he can to ensure that the necessary level of protection is afforded to our soldiers on the ground in Iraq.

Geoff Hoon: I can certainly give those assurances.

John Lyons: Just two weeks ago, my colleagues and I were in the Basra-Umm Qasr area and we clearly saw that British troops were playing a sterling role in trying to work with, and give every assistance to, the local community. My concern is that this horrific incident should not lead to any reversal of policy. It is the correct policy and it should be continued.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Several hon. Members have told me of their shock, having visited southern Iraq and having seen the security situation on the ground improving steadily, at the appalling incidents that have now taken place. That is why it is so important to understand precisely what has happened.

Nigel Dodds: May I, on behalf of my hon. Friends, also extend condolences to the families of all those who have been injured and killed in the tragic incidents in Iraq today? We in Northern Ireland are, tragically, all too familiar with this type of incident and we wish the injured well in their recovery. What is the position in respect of contact with local leaders on the ground in southern Iraq and what level of co-operation are British forces on the ground receiving?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. As far as local leaders are concerned, we have enjoyed an extremely good relationship across southern Iraq. Indeed, the information about the six deaths at the police station came from local people.

Gwyn Prosser: The men of the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment are based in my Dover constituency. They were due to start coming home next week. Can my right hon. Friend say whether these incidents have changed those arrangements, and what practical arrangements are in hand to allow families and friends of people still serving overseas to make direct contact with the Ministry?

Geoff Hoon: I am not aware of any plans to change the arrangements for the return, though the overall security position obviously has to be kept under review in the light of these dreadful incidents. I can certainly reassure all the families whose loved ones are serving in Iraq that every effort is being made for their welfare.

Richard Younger-Ross: Like the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), I also visited Basra two weeks ago. People should realise that the work that our troops are doing on the ground is excellent. Local people greeted us with great friendliness. To all of us on that visit, this tragic news is particularly bitter. I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that our forces continue to do the good work that they are doing now.

Alice Mahon: May I join others in expressing my deep sympathy to the relatives of the dead? I have mixed feelings tonight. A young relative of mine just returned home from Basra today, so I feel awful about what has happened. I repeat what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell): is it not time to call in the United Nations to help? We daily see American soldiers killed and other incidents for which we all feel horror. Is it not time that the whole world came together to do something about security and really help Iraq? If we are serious about helping the Iraqi people, we should secure the involvement of the United Nations. It is clear that there is hostility towards the coalition.

Geoff Hoon: I repeat that there is a United Nations resolution, under which forces are already in Iraq with the authority provided by it. Indeed, we continue to discuss with other nations the contributions that they will make to rebuilding Iraq.

Roy Beggs: May I extend the condolences of my party to the families of those who have lost loved ones in Iraq, and our good wishes for the recovery of those who have been injured? It is particularly poignant, given that we have just hosted Iraqi members of the special Olympics team in my home town and constituency. We want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister and all Departments that helped facilitate that visit. I hope and trust that God will be with our troops in Iraq as they seek to serve the people of Iraq and restore democracy and permanent peace.

Jeremy Corbyn: In the light of today's tragic events, will the Secretary of State reflect further on the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? We are talking about a desire for a United Nations force in Iraq that can assist in developing representative and accountable government there. Clearly, as time goes on, the British and American forces will increasingly be seen as an army of occupation rather than an army of liberation. Does the Secretary of State not think that the UN is best equipped to fulfil that role?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept that description of the coalition forces, but I will certainly reflect further on what all hon. Members have had to say.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Secretary of State for making that early report and statement.

LICENSING BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

Motion made and Question put,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Licensing Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 24th March 2003 and 16th June 2003.
	Consideration of Lords Message
	1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, the Lords Amendment in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 62, the Lords Reasons for disagreeing to Commons Amendments Nos. 6, 15, 16, 20 and 21 and the Lords Amendment in lieu of words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment No. 50.
	Subsequent stages
	3. Any further message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
	4. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 158.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Licensing Bill [Lords]

Lords amendments and reasons, considered.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendment No. 62 to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees with the amendment No. 62A proposed by the Lords in lieu thereof.
	In speaking on this issue, I will also speak on the proposed Government amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of the proposed amendment by the Lords.
	What many people do not seem to realise is that the Licensing Bill is not an extension of the scope of entertainment licensing. Generally speaking, nothing that does not need a licence or other authorisation now will need one under the Bill. What the Bill does is make it much cheaper and easier to get a licence where one is needed.

Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Caborn: No. I am just laying out the case. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
	The Bill is a combination of safety law and licensing that keeps people safe at entertainment venues of any size. Taking away licensing would undermine fundamentally the ability to protect the public. So Parliament traditionally has taken the view that it is necessary for professionals such as health and safety officers and fire officers to advise licensing authorities on the adequacy of the arrangements in place at any venue.
	Lords amendment No. 62A would totally undermine the ability of the experts to assess public safety across a huge swathe of entertainment venues. For example, Westminster city council has written to the Department to point out that 62 per cent. of its entertainment venues would escape any kind of scrutiny at all under amendment No. 62A. In our view, that is completely unacceptable. It would take public safety out of the hands of the experts and put it in those of amateurs.

Peter Bottomley: I thank the Minister for giving way, and I think that the House understands that many parts of the Bill are acceptable and worthwhile. The objections—from people outside, from the other place and from some people in this House—have to do with whether the Government are railroading through proposals when an adjustment would be much more acceptable.
	For example, at the end of the previous Commons debate the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who was then responsible for the Bill, answered in the affirmative when I asked whether I needed a licence for a church event in my own house, at which there would be music rather than poetry reading. That is the sort of event that has got caught up unnecessarily. I am speaking not so much for myself as for people like me, and that is the problem: many more people will be caught by the Bill than the Minister has acknowledged.

Richard Caborn: I shall clear up some of those points as I go, and explain why the amendment has been moved. However, serious matters of public safety are involved, and I should have thought that they were crucial to this House.
	As a slight aside, amendment No. 62A's sole concession to public nuisance is that any event to which the exemption applies should finish by 11.30 pm. Unfortunately, it does nothing to prevent an event starting at 11.31 pm and continuing for 23 hours and 59 minutes. Therefore, examination of the amendment shows that it does not achieve what it sets out to achieve. I urge this House to throw out Lords amendment No. 62A, which we believe to be dangerous and defective; otherwise, the House will have to be held to account if there is a serious accident at a venue exempted from the proposed regulations, and if a death occurs as a result.
	However, I fully recognise that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Even with all the safeguards in the Bill—and with the additional work that we are doing in the statutory guidance, with the help of performers' representatives, to limit the potential for licensing authorities to act disproportionately—many venue operators, particularly pub owners, are fearful that if they tick the box and apply for permission to put on entertainment, the licensing authority will hit them for thousands of pounds worth of unnecessary conditions.
	So we have proposed a concessionary amendment, in lieu of Lords amendment No. 62A, which places further restrictions on the ability of licensing authorities to apply conditions on premises licences that authorise the provision of certain forms of regulated entertainment.
	I shall now list those premises to which the effect of the new clause is restricted. First, the new clause applies where a premises licence or club premises certificate is in force authorising the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises and the performance of live music or of dance or the provision of entertainment facilities for making music or dancing or entertainment of a similar description. Secondly, it applies to premises that are used primarily for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises. It therefore covers mainly pubs and bars. Thirdly, it applies to premises where the regulated entertainment that I mentioned earlier is provided when the premises are open for the supply of alcohol for consumption there. Fourthly, it applies to premises where the premises licence or certificate stipulates a permitted capacity limit for the premises of no more than 200 people.
	What that means in practice is that, although conditions may be imposed on a premises licence or certificate in relation to any of the licensing objectives, they will only have effect in two circumstances—where they relate to the prevention of crime and disorder or to public safety, or where they have been stated to apply or have been imposed following a review of a premises licence, and relate to any of the licensing objectives.

David Heath: I have just been mulling over what the Minister said about the great fire risk incurred when music is being played. Would the risk be any less if the same people were watching a widescreen television, or simply drinking on the premises?

Richard Caborn: No. We are talking about a licence that covers any equipment that is used. The Musicians Union has objected to the proposals to some extent, but it advises its members to use greater care than that set out in statute when dealing with electrical goods, and so on. What we are trying to do is ensure that premises are safe, and the Bill will give comfort to the general public on that score. As I said, accepting the Lords amendment would mean that 62 per cent. of premises in the Westminster area would be exempt from the conditions ion the Bill—conditions that we think are basic to public safety.

John Whittingdale: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Caborn: I will in a moment.
	In effect, this is a "one strike and you're out" policy. Operators can benefit from the disapplication of conditions—except for reasons of crime and disorder, or public safety—provided that they do not abuse the privilege, and end up being reviewed. So if an operator allows the music and dancing that he or she is putting on to give rise to issues of public nuisance, the licence or certificate can be reviewed and conditions necessary for the promotion of the relevant licensing objectives attached.

Andrew Bennett: What my hon. Friend the Minister is saying appears to be very helpful to those involved in traditional folk events, which take place in small pubs. However, when he talks about 200 people, does he mean that they are all inside a pub, or must the capacity of beer gardens also be taken into account? That capacity is often quite difficult to estimate.

Richard Caborn: No. I think that the common-sense approach would be that the proposal applies to the space inside the premises, which is where the people whom we are trying to protect are to be found. My understanding is that the licence applies to the premises, but if a correction is necessary I shall let my hon. Friend know.

Malcolm Moss: Just before the Minister sat down he used the term "public nuisance", but the only conditions in Government amendment (a) that I can see are the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. It says nothing about public nuisance.

Richard Caborn: If that is the case, we shall revisit the matter. As far as I am concerned, however, public nuisance is covered by the amendment to which I am speaking at the moment.
	I hope that there is a certain amount of support in the House for the four proposals that the Government are making. The Opposition often tell us to get shot of red tape, and with this Bill we are bringing six licensing provisions together in one proposal. The basic principles are set out very clearly in the Bill. They are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. I should have thought that those aims would have gained the Opposition's support, as they consistently ask the Government to get rid of red tape. The amendment that we are discussing, and the Bill as a whole, will do just that.

Malcolm Moss: rose—

Richard Caborn: I shall not give way again.
	I realise that some people will be deeply concerned about restricting the application of conditions imposed on a licence or certificate, other than those related to crime, disorder or public safety, until a review takes place. The other licensing objectives are important. I share those concerns. Live music and dancing can, and do, give rise to public nuisance, and there are also issues about protecting children from harm.
	However, the Government have taken the view that by limiting the concession to premises that primarily supply alcohol and are subject to a condition that the permitted capacity is 200, coupled with the review procedure, the disapplication of conditions other than those relating to public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder can be justified.
	I shall say a little about why we have not acted to disapply conditions relating to public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder. On crime and disorder, the police have made strong representations to us that the legislation must deal with three issues in particular: guns, drugs and bands that incite crowds to violence. The first two matters speak for themselves. The third relates to certain bands that espouse extreme right-wing values and whose performances often directly encourage violence, fuelled by the worst examples of racist hatred, among the audience. That is a major problem in some cities and the police, rightly, need powers to take preventive action.
	On public safety, the case is straightforward: people will be injured or die if we ignore it. Although nuisance can be a blight on people's lives, it is unlikely to result in the death of those affected, and if an operator acts inconsiderately towards his neighbours and causes a nuisance, the premises licence or club premises certificate can be reviewed.
	That concession will give responsible authorities the ability to act to address public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder up front, while, for practical purposes, the other licensing objectives will be in abeyance pending a review. I repeat that the Government feel strongly about these issues. We want to retain proper protections for local residents against irresponsible operators whose activities give rise to issues of public nuisance and we want to ensure the protection of children from harm. At the same time, the provisions will act to provide a further focus for licensing authorities, in imposing only necessary and proportionate conditions.

John Whittingdale: The Minister puts great stress on public safety and, of course, we share his concern that nothing must be done that would endanger the public. However, will he explain the point already raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)? Why do the same considerations not apply in the case of a pub where 200 people may be watching a World cup final on a large screen? Surely, the same public safety issues would arise, yet they are not covered by the Bill.

Richard Caborn: We do not take that judgment. Our judgment is laid out in the amendment. It is as simple as that. We believe that our amendment is proportionate and necessary to address the Lords amendment and to answer some of the concerns raised in debate in the other place, as well as reflecting representations that we have received from local authorities and the police.
	Hon. Members do not need to take only my word for that. The Association of Chief Police Officers has written to the Department to protest in strong terms against the dangerous Lords amendment. We have made that letter available to Opposition Front-Bench Members, and I hope that they will have the sense to take full note of its contents. ACPO said that the Bill already strikes a balance that it is happy to support. It notes that exempting premises from licensing altogether would deprive the police of the opportunity to take measures to deal with problems that may arise through nuisance, crime and disorder. Finally, it indicates that the correct approach is one that tailors conditions to the level of risk. The combination of the Bill, as drafted, the statutory guidance and the amendment that I am asking the House to accept achieves that risk-based approach and I ask the House to support the motion.

Malcolm Moss: I welcome the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box after responsibility for the Bill was added to his burgeoning portfolio. It is tempting to point out that he is the third Minister in as many weeks to take responsibility for what is turning out to be rather a poisoned chalice. I hope that, unlike his colleague in the other place, he has not had his letterheads printed prematurely. I wonder how much it cost for the former Minister to change his letterheads. As we have not yet seen the current Minister's letterheads, we do not know whether he has taken that road.
	Commiserations as well as congratulations would seem to be in order. The only consolation for the Minister is that he will not have to undergo much more of this particular torture, because the Government will either lose the Bill in a few weeks' time, or they will see the eminent sense of their lordships' amendments and come to a sensible compromise before their lordships take another vote, which will, I understand, be a week on Thursday.
	The amendment deals with the vexed question of small events exemptions for music and dance. It would be salutary to remind ourselves of the story so far. When the Bill was in the other place, their lordships added a small premises exemption that the Government threw out in Committee in this place. The Government rejected a similar amendment on Report in this place. Their lordships duly reinstated their provision last week and the Government are only now making their first attempt to find a solution to the problem.
	I stress that in all our debates on the Bill, this is the Government's first effort to address the real and continuing concerns of a huge swathe of people who rely on music, not only functionally for employment, but also culturally. The Government's proposal goes a little way, but it does not satisfy the requirements of those people. The Government have only themselves to blame. They seem to have set their face against reason and logic.
	We need to remind ourselves of the background to the proposals. For many decades, live music has been provided, without entertainment licences, at tens of thousands of private events and in thousands of private members' clubs, without causing significant problems for the police. For more than 40 years, the two-in-a-bar exemption has applied in more than 110,000 liquor-licensed premises. To the best of my knowledge and that of those involved in both licensing and entertainment, all those who spoke in Committee and all those who have lobbied the Opposition on the Bill, the police have never made an issue of the two-in-a-bar rule. The police made no representations on the rule during the recent consultation period.
	We face the prospect of none in a bar, and the interests of live music, folk clubs and their ilk, including folk dancing, will be not be further forwarded by the amendment. What would the Bill mean without an exemption? Without a licence under the Bill, there can be a jukebox in a bar; big screens and a public address system could be set up anywhere to broadcast music, sport or anything else, but putting on a performance by a solo pianist or a string quartet would be a criminal offence. Even providing a piano for the public to make their own entertainment would be an offence, unless licensed. That is the consequence of a whole new category of offences introduced for the provision of unlicensed "entertainment facilities". The provisions are direct discrimination against live music; they are obviously nonsense and obviously unjust.
	Of course, the Minister has made great play of the fact that the Government are attempting to restore proportionality, but the only way to do that is to introduce a de minimis exemption. True to form, the main theme of the Minister's argument has been to try to play up the public safety arguments against the small-events exemption. Again, the exemption for big-screen entertainment and stand-up comedy exposes the weakness of that argument.
	Opposition Members have twice questioned the Minister on what he perceives to be the difference with a crowd of people—not just 200, but sometimes 500 or more—packed to the gunwales in a pub, cheering on a football match, but the Minister had no answer to that direct question. How is it all right to provide those facilities without an entertainment licence, but even unamplified live performance cannot be adequately regulated unless licensed?
	On previous occasions, the Government have talked about the terrible fires, caused by fireworks, that occurred in a music club in the United States, but that is a complete red herring. It should be pointed out that a pyrotechnics licence was required in those circumstances in the USA, but it appears that the club did not possess one.
	A pub landlord could throw a party in his garden, with fire-eaters, knife throwers, a bouncy castle, cables trailing to an air compressor, and a powerful CD player, and that would be exempt from entertainment licensing under the Bill. However, adding a featured, unamplified performance by a solo guitarist would be a criminal offence unless licensed.
	The Government have prayed in aid the views of the police, not just in the debate this evening, but on many previous occasions. Why have they circulated the letter from Assistant Chief Constable Taylor of Greater Manchester police headquarters, who is responsible for licensing issues, to the Liberal Democrat Members who have contributed to the debates in Committee and myself? Their lordships first voted for the small-premises or events exemption back in early March—14 weeks ago—so why did not the police bother to air their concerns publicly before now? Why, at the eleventh hour, do we receive that letter, bringing down the wrath of Gideon on everyone, when the police have had ample opportunity to raise their concerns at an earlier stage?
	The Minister has alluded to some of that letter's content, and I should like to go through it because he used it as the basis on which to drive forward the public safety issue. Speaking of Lords amendment No. 62, the assistant chief constable says:
	"It allows live music events to take place at premises which are not licensed and in respect of which, therefore, there has been no opportunity to ensure that the necessary measures are in place to protect the public in accordance with all the licensing objectives."
	So the police are saying that, unless somewhere is licensed, we cannot ensure that all the licensing objectives are adhered to. Let us remind ourselves of what those objectives are, since the Minister has alluded to them. As listed in clause 5(2)(a) to (d), they are: preventing crime and disorder; public safety; amenity and environment for residents, which covers things like noise and disturbance; and, finally, protecting children from harm.
	The letter from the police goes on to say:
	"As the premises may not be licensed, the police would be deprived of the opportunity to take measures to deal with problems which may arise through nuisance, crime and disorder."
	However, the police say nothing about public safety or protecting children from harm, so the Minister and the Department seem to have been rather choosy in selecting what to include in their amendment and to have ignored quite a lot of what the police have recommended.
	Finally, the police go on to talk about live music and the heavy metal bands that presumably frequent the north-west. I am afraid that we do not seem to have them in East Anglia.

John Whittingdale: We do.

Malcolm Moss: Fine, but I have not come across them.
	The police are worried about the differences between heavy metal music and the normal sort of pianist or quartet music. They say:
	"These differences extend not only to the level of noise emanating from the venue (which could be a venue outdoors) but also"—
	this is how they link such things with crime and disorder—
	"to the type of clientele attending the event".
	ACPO's argument for rejecting the exemption, as it would apply to unlicensed premises, is essentially that, because heavy metal bands exist, the provision in such places of all other live music, even an unamplified solo performance, must be a criminal offence unless licensed. That is indeed taking the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut and it is not sufficient justification for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
	Where is the Government's flexibility? Where is any sign of lateral thinking? For example, it would be perfectly possible to introduce a notification requirement where electrical amplification is used for live performance in places that were not already licensed for alcohol or other regulated entertainments. If that notification were to the local authority and the police, as with temporary event notices, that should allow for intervention using existing health and safety and noise nuisance legislation. Of course, the police would be in the know—they would know that such things were going on—and could intervene. In such circumstances, performances without notification could be made an offence. Perhaps police and local authority powers of closure could be extended to those events, similar to the powers proposed in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which we have just discussed, and existing police closure powers for licensed premises.
	Of course, the hours issue is another red herring, repeated by the Minister this evening. The police are worried, for some reason, that the amendment would allow people to close their premises at 11.30 and reopen them at 11.31. Well, frankly, if the Government were positive in seeking a solution to that problem, a simple change to the wording could be made so that the premises could open for a given number of hours between 10 in the morning and 11.30 at night on the same day. Although the Minister has made a big issue of that, as did his colleague in the other place, the problem could be easily overcome.
	The Minister has prayed in aid the letter from the assistant chief constable, but the police seem to be catching the Government's habit of selective amnesia. Why, in ACPO's recent letter, does it not remind the Government of its written representations to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, warning that televised sporting events were quite frequently a source of disorder and should, in its view, be made licensable entertainments? Why has no notice of that been taken either in the letter from the police or by the Minister from Dispatch Box this evening?
	Let me now turn to Government amendment (a), entitled "dancing and live music in pubs etc." Perhaps we should appear grateful that dancing has been linked with live music, but we believe that the whole proposal is seriously flawed. Frankly, it is irrational. First, it can apply only if the pub already has a licence for musical entertainment and, as I said a moment ago, that includes dance in the new meaning. The biggest single point about the need for a de minimis exemption is to avoid having to get such a licence in the first place. Having to get one and then disapplying certain conditions in certain cases is not a solution.
	Secondly, the restrictions lifted might include those most likely to be deemed necessary: if any, those on noise levels and amplification. The amendment, in subsections (3) and (4), deals only with restrictions applying when there are considerations of public safety and crime and disorder. In my intervention on the Minister, I mentioned subsection (3)(a) and (b). ACPO, however, wanted to tighten up on crime and disorder and noise but not on public safety. Noise is not to feature, however, as a ground for imposing conditions. Where is the consistency? The Minister let it slip in his speech that public nuisance was going to be used as a condition, but it is not in the amendment. Therefore, as he said, he will have to go away and think about that again. Time, however, is running out.
	Thirdly, if there is no permitted capacity either under the soon-to-be-repealed Fire Precautions Act 1971 or otherwise, the provisions cannot apply no matter how small the premises or the respective part used or to be used. It seems illogical to prevent premises with a permitted capacity of, say, 500 under the 1971 Act from putting on a musical entertainment for, say, only 200 people in the whole or just part of those premises. Why, after all this time, are the Government turning for help to the Fire Precautions Act 1971? This is the first time it has been mentioned in more than 60 hours of debate on the Bill in this House alone. One gets the impression that the Government are thrashing around in desperation to get themselves, if at all possible, off a substantial hook of their own making.
	Although the margin of the vote in the other place last Thursday was the narrowest that it has been, I assure the Minister that considerably more support is available for new amendments that tighten up Lords amendment 62A to address the concerns about amplification, noise and even numbers. A great deal of good will exists, particularly on the Cross Benches, to find a compromise that still exempts live music at small events from the over-regulated burden of entertainment licensing. The Minister is new to his task, but if he and the Government want the Bill to be passed, certainly before the requirement to address the legal basis of licensing in the Welsh Assembly kicks in—in the autumn, I believe—further adjustment and compromise will be necessary.
	One is compelled to ask whether the proposal in this amendment is a mere stalking horse, cynically designed to be unacceptable, to facilitate a spurious argument that the Government tried to meet the needs driving the small premises exemption. Reading between the lines, what the Government seem to be bending over backwards not to state explicitly is that the existing legislation of various Acts of Parliament may be sufficient—I have alluded to the Fire Precautions Act 1971—but that they do not trust certain people to implement those properly.

Frank Dobson: I want to make it clear from the word "go" that I do not support the Lords amendment. Unlike Conservative Front-Bench Members, I support the police and I certainly speak up for local residents in my area. I was therefore hoping that the Government amendment would be an improvement on the Lords amendment, which it is. I regret to say, however, that it, in itself, is faulty. What may be a small event to us at a distance —an event where loud music comes out of small premises holding 200 people—is not small if one lives next door to it or across the road from it. We need to bear that in mind.
	My principal concern about the Government amendment, which, as I said, is a vast improvement on the Lords amendment, is that, of the four licensing objectives in the overall Bill—prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm—it exempts live music venues from the requirement not to be a public nuisance and the requirement to protect children from harm. I had assumed at first that that was just a slip, but it appears, from what my right hon. Friend the Minister said, to be deliberate. That seems strange because, of all the characteristics of loud music, being a public nuisance is the first one that springs to mind when we consider the licensing objectives. It is more likely to be a public nuisance than a threat to public safety, a threat to crime and disorder or a threat to harm children. I cannot understand why all four of the licensing objectives should not apply to such premises in the same way as they will apply to all other premises, especially given that loud music is likely to be a public nuisance above all else. I hope that when the Bill goes back to—or returns from—the House of Lords, we will be able to add public nuisance to the list of conditions that may be applied from the start.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister put forward the alternative. He suggested that people must experience a public nuisance, go through months of trouble from some premises, go to the bother of making protestations and get the licensing body to examine the situation before it goes through a long procedure to drag the licensee before it. That could last for months on end while local residents' lives are made a misery. Given that most premises will be properly run and will not cause a nuisance, introducing a requirement that they must not be a public nuisance would not place a great burden on the bulk of them. If the requirement placed a burden on the wrong 'uns, that is exactly what we would want.

Nick Harvey: In some ways I am rather saddened that we are still debating this vexed issue even at such a late stage, although I am not especially surprised. It is the aspect of the entire Bill that has caused the most controversy and anxiety in the country. As the weeks and months have gone by, it is remarkable that the Government have shown no serious intent to address the issue. It has been raised on a wide front throughout the country, and the result of the Government's reluctance to sit down and examine the issue seriously is that we are still debating it at this late stage.
	The problem goes back to the fundamental question of why it is necessary to license public entertainment at all. I listened to the Minister's predictions of doom, disaster and calamities for public safety if we do not have entertainment licensing for all events, however modest their scale. I cast my mind north of the border to Scotland where there is no public entertainment licensing, yet I see no signs of the death, disaster, disease and pestilence that the Minister anticipates if we do not operate the regime in England. The Government have raised a completely false spectre.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no control on public entertainment in Scotland, but a licensing authority must put a condition on what covers public entertainment.

Nick Harvey: I say most emphatically that I did not claim that there was no control on public entertainment in Scotland. The point that has been made consistently during the passage of the Bill is that there are plenty of other controls on public entertainment, so there is no need to add the licensing regime that the Bill will implement. It is precisely because there are so many other ways to control public entertainments and public safety at them that the provision is so unnecessary.
	If it were true that the Lords amendment were deficient or offensive to the Government, I would have expected Ministers to propose sensible modifications to it. However, the Government amendment does no such thing. The Government have missed the point of the Lords amendment—either deliberately or by mischance. The points that were rehearsed this evening were the same as those made in Committee and on Report.
	There is a problem regarding the treatment of a venue if a wide-screen television shows either a football match to a rowdy crowd, which might include supporters of both teams—depending on the match and the location of the premises—or a pop concert that chucks out music at a high level of decibels. The anomaly between how those two events will be treated remains an essential problem that has not been addressed.
	The Minister read extracts from the letter circulated by the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is worth turning our attention to one or two matters raised in it. One concern that the police articulated is that the exemption as framed by the House of Lords would apply to all premises anywhere, not just to those that already have a liquor licence or premises licence of some description. Surely it would be more constructive for the Government to respond to the Lords amendment by modifying it so that the small events exemption applies only to premises that already have a premises licence. The police would have the power to order a closure and the licence holder would fear that the licence might not be renewed if there were recurrent instances of entertainments that were occurring as a result of the exemption and were causing a nuisance in the vicinity.
	As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said, if anyone is seriously arguing that the wording of the Lords amendment is deficient because events that started at 11.31 pm are not covered, it is not beyond the wit of parliamentary draftsmen to remedy that and draft a modified amendment. I agree with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that Government amendment (a) is bizarre. Quite apart from the fact that it does not remedy the problem and is not a concession, it is also flawed in the way that he suggested. One would expect the premises licence to cover all four of the Bill's objectives. The idea that we suddenly drop a couple of them in the case of small entertainments is bizarre.
	However, the key problem with the Government amendment is, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, that it applies only if someone has an entertainment licence. The entire point of the exemption proposed by the other place is to get around the need to have an entertainment licence, which is, in any case, unnecessary for the reasons that I touched on and as we know from the experience in Scotland. The Government have not made a concession. They have not begun to address the purpose of the House of Lords amendment.

David Heath: What did my hon. Friend make of the Minister's bold assertion at the beginning of his speech that nothing would need a licence that did not need one before? Is it not transparently obvious that two people singing in a bar did not need a licence before and now they will?

Nick Harvey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point on which I wished to finish. The Minister's assertion that nothing will require a licence under the Bill that did not require one previously is self-evidently nonsense. A host of things will require licensing that did not before, not least the sort of events that the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) mentioned. There was a useful de minimis exemption in previous legislation. I understand why in this day and age it is necessary to find something better and less arbitrary than the two-in-a-bar rule. The Government will have to spend the next few days scratching around to find such a de minimis exemption or we will get into an extended stand-off with the other place.

Peter Bottomley: To be fair to the Minister, he said that not many things would be caught by licensing that were not caught before. The Official Report will show whether or not I am right, but it is not my job to support the Minister.
	I want to return to what his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said at column 180 of the Official Report on 16 June. He said that if people are charged an admission fee for an event and if drinks are paid for, a temporary entertainment licence is needed. That will affect not just Church or political party events but any event organised by a voluntary organisation where people, out of the goodness of their heart, say, "Come in and use our house, premises or barn for an event to raise funds for a good cause."
	Temporary entertainment licences are not the precise subject of the amendment, so I shall briefly remind the Minister that we understand the arguments about strip bars and all the other arguments used in the other place and, occasionally, the Commons.
	The Government should not rely either on throwing out the Lords amendment or on any technical defect to carry on without thinking. I hope, whatever the result of tonight's vote, that the Minister will ask his officials to assist the Government in helping the other place and the Commons to get this right. Modification is needed.
	There may be too many Labour Members in the House tonight for the Opposition to win the vote, but that is no justification for doing things wrong, when it is relatively easy to do them right.

Mark Field: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), as there is a great danger that we are rushing the provision through.
	I wish to address the grave concerns raised by Conservative Members. From a constituency perspective, I am particularly worried about the amendment to exempt premises serving fewer than 200 people from measures dealing with public nuisance and the need to preserve children from harm whenever the premises are open. I share the grave concerns of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about the Lords amendment. However, I accept the case for that amendment presented by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss)— at least it had the advantage of ensuring that events finished by 11.30 pm instead of going on until any time, as is now being proposed.
	The Minister was disingenuous when discussing Westminster city council's objections to the Lords amendment, as 62 per cent. of premises accommodate fewer than 200 people. Westminster city council is even more concerned about the proposals that we are discussing tonight, as are the many local residents and residents' associations with which I, like the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, have worked closely. The majority of licensed premises in central London accommodate fewer than 200 people, and the noise nuisance consequences of any entertainment, which could be music or dancing but under the sweeping nature of the amendment could also include the nude entertainment that is part and parcel, albeit a small part, of local entertainment in Soho, would be exempt. We must look at what will happen in practice. All that residents can do is suffer public nuisance, then call for a review. Only then can they ask a licensing authority to disregard the exemption.
	It is bizarre, to put it mildly, that the amendment is being rushed through. There is less than 24 hours to consider it, and there was probably not much more time for the hapless officials in the Department to prepare it. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Minister will think twice, otherwise I fear that the matter will ping-pong between the Commons and another place.
	I spoke to Westminster city council as a matter of urgency late this afternoon, and its reaction was not enthusiastic. It feels that the provision is complicated and reactionary, and would put even more pressure on it. The same would apply to the London borough of Camden and other central London authorities, which would not have the necessary support or resources. We discussed the transitional arrangements on Report, and a vote took place, which we could not win. I know that the matter will be discussed again in another place. I hope that the Minister will think twice about this amendment, which I suspect was rushed through and which promises to be extremely damaging.

Richard Caborn: I shall respond to hon. Members' legitimate concerns. From the debate, it sounded as though no exemptions had been made, but that is not so. During the passage of the Bill, exemptions have been made for places of public religious worship, church halls, village halls, community centres, schools and sixth form colleges. Further exemptions have been made for incidental light music, performers have been decriminalised, and statutory guidance is to be developed.
	I can tell the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who spoke for the official Opposition, that the reason the police have not objected before is that there was no need for them to object. They fully supported what the Government were doing on the matter. As we tried to meet some of the concerns expressed in the House and in another place, we moved away from our original position. It was only then that the police made representations. It would be foolhardy not to reflect on what they are saying. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who spoke for the Liberal party, may shake his head, but we believe it is right to take account of what the police say.
	Local authorities also supported the Government's proposals, but because we moved away from our original position, they too have made representations, and it is legitimate for them to do so. In framing our amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment, we have tried to reflect their concerns and some of the concerns expressed in the House and the other place. That is why the police are now raising serious issues about drugs, their association with light music, the gun culture and the extreme violence promoted by some bands. I hope that hon. Members support what the police say and what we have tried to embody in the amendment. If they do not, they should get up and say so to the House.
	May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) that if a premises is licensed, that applies to the whole of the premises, so the gardens would be covered by the licence?
	I did not initially understand the remarks of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) who dealt with the Bill previously. I gather that the hon. Gentleman asked—he will correct me if I am wrong—whether he would need a licence if he had a party to raise money and wanted to sell alcohol. Anybody selling alcohol needs a licence if they are doing that for profit. That is the law as it stands, and the Bill will not change it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to undertake major fundraising for the Conservative party and wants to sell liquor at a profit to raise money, he needs a licence.
	The hon. Gentleman said that he wrote a letter. I will have it sought out and try to answer it in writing. If I have understood his point correctly, he would need a licence, even though the profit was for the Conservative party.

Peter Bottomley: At column 180, in the example to which I referred, I used both the party and the Church. I used the party first, to try to draw out of Ministers an answer that they have declined to give over all the months of the Bill's progress.
	The Church example catches the point as well. If the Church is caught for the supply of alcohol if people pay for their tickets, and they are making the entertainment themselves, that is an exemption which the Minister ought to ask his officials to draft for him. I make that plea to him. Between now and the Bill's return to the other place, will he please read the letter and the earlier exchange, if necessary give me a call, and try to find a solution?

Richard Caborn: If there is a genuine misunderstanding, we shall try to clear it up. I was present for the close of the previous debate, and as I understood the hon. Gentleman, he wanted to hold a fundraising activity that would involve the selling of alcohol to raise money for the Conservative party. If that is not the case, I shall consider the matter further. I shall try to be helpful to him, but that is the position as I understand it.
	As to the great television debate on which we now all seem to be hooked, there is no doubt that there are some tremendous professionals in the House, but no representation has been made by any professional suggesting that licences should be issued in respect of televisions in rooms in public places. If representations are made by the professionals, we will consider them, but that is the information that I have been given. If the hon. Member for North Devon has different information, I have no doubt that he we will let us know.

Nick Harvey: rose—

Malcolm Moss: rose—

Richard Caborn: I shall not give way, as I want to answer questions asked by other hon. Members.
	I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has genuine concerns about the nuisance that he believes blights his constituency. I fully understand that. We are trying to be proportionate in the amendment. We are covering two areas, although there are four major areas in the Bill. We believe that the question of nuisance can be taken up in terms of the review. All that he would have to do is raise his concern with the licensing authorities in respect of such a review, which can be carried out by a statutory organisation or an individual.
	Where we have concerns about public safety, we believe that action should be taken from the outset and that the approach should be proactive, rather than reactive. Nuisance will not kill people, whereas we believe that what we are dealing with could be a danger to public life. On the questions of noise and protection of children, we believe that the issues can be taken up and are adequately dealt with by the Bill. Indeed, they can be raised either by the statutory bodies or by individuals.
	I think that I have covered most of the points that have been raised by hon. Members. We believe that the House should support the amendment.

Question put, That this House insists on its amendment No. 62 to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees with the amendment No. 62A proposed by the Lords in lieu thereof.
	The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 159.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	It being more than one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day]
	Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 62A agreed to.
	Resolved, That this House does not insist on its amendment No. 21 to which the Lords have disagreed.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Amendments (a) to (h) in lieu of Commons amendment No. 21 agreed to.
	Resolved, That this House does not insist on its amendments Nos. 6, 15, 16 and 20, to which the Lords have disagreed and agrees with Lords amendment No. 50A in lieu of Commons amendment No. 50—[Mr. Ainger.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Community Pharmacies

Paul Truswell: I wish to present a petition signed by more than 3,500 of my constituents and others regarding their concerns about the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading on community pharmacies. I pay particular tribute to Mr. Tom Liptrot, a community pharmacist in my constituency, who has been assiduous in promoting this petition.
	The petition states:
	The implementation of the Office of Fair Trading recommendation to remove restrictions on entry to the community pharmacy market could create instability in the community pharmacy sector, put a blight on the investment plans of pharmacies, frustrate the plans of primary care trusts, and thereby reduce access to community-based services, none of which would be consistent with the Department of Health's policy document "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan".
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to reject this recommendation.
	To lie upon the Table.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (TAX TREATMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]

Alan Hurst: I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this important matter before the House. Although I have no direct experience of the building industry, I come from a family who for generations worked in that industry. My father was a lifelong member of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, a predecessor union to UCATT. One of my earliest memories is of attending the union's Christmas party for children at the Oakleigh Co-operative hall, probably in 1950. My next memory was of my father building a council estate in Didcot in 1951. He was a general foreman on a construction site for Laings, and I spent a week down there with him as he patrolled the site giving directions to the people working there, all of whom I understood to be the employees of the contractor.
	That was a long time ago. This Government and previous Governments have wrestled with the problems over the past 40 or 50 years. Reform of the Inland Revenue construction industry scheme was announced in the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement in November 2002, together with the publication of the consultation paper entitled "The Inland Revenue and the Construction Industry—Working together for a New Scheme". That may be said to be a first. If its aims can be achieved, there will be considerable progress.
	The revised scheme, which is to be implemented in 2005, sets three broad aims: to reduce the regulatory burden on the industry; to improve compliance, particularly with regard to tax obligations; and to assist businesses properly to assess the proper status of their workers. Reducing paperwork is linked to the introduction of computerisation. At present, "employers" issue slips or vouchers supposedly every time a payment is made to the "self-employed man or woman", and that is then sent off for tax reconciliation at the end of the year. One of the major problems has been that employees often do not receive the vouchers, or they receive them en bloc, as a result of which they have considerable difficulties in assessing the tax calculation at the end of the period.
	The proposal is that the Inland Revenue computer system will simplify that enormously. Provided that it works—and that is what used to be called a conditional clause—it should make some considerable progress but the Revenue over 30 years has been trying to overcome tax evasion in the construction industry without any real and lasting success. My fear is that, unless we are careful with the revised scheme, there will be further disappointment and public confidence will wane further.
	The consequences of failure are not just a loss to the Inland Revenue, which has been estimated by Dr. Harvey, who was engaged by UCATT to assess the position, to be about £1.2 billion to £2 billion per year, but a loss to every taxpayer in the country. I recently tabled a parliamentary question to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, and I believe that there are no clear figures or estimates from the Government as to what the loss is, although I suspect that they will concede that there is a loss. However, false self-employment has further consequences. It goes to the heart of the industry. It fragments the work force and denies workers in the industry employment rights. The man who is said to be self-employed but in reality is not loses all the protections that the employed man would have, and risks losing social security benefits if he fails to pay his national insurance contributions.
	On the face of it, there is a short-term gain for contractors in employing the self-employed. That comes about because they escape liability for employers national insurance contributions. Nor are they obliged to offer many of the rights and protections that they would have to offer to those who are on the payroll. The whole system is essentially false. It is a fantasy world. One can go to building sites, look at the men employed and they will all appear to be doing the same job, working there week after week. They will all appear to be on the same terms but some will be employed and some will be purporting to be self-employed. The working man is in a difficult position because if he complains, he may risk losing his job. It is not unknown for contractors to insist on self-employment rather than to offer any choice.
	There may have been some progress over the past two or three years but even today, a union official in my division, Ron McKay, told me of a building site close by. He believes that 100 per cent. of those working there—it is quite a large site—are purporting to be self-employed.
	I suppose that the problem really started back in the 1960s. Before then, the majority of workers were on the pay-as-you-earn scheme. They were engaged perhaps by a subcontractor, but predominantly by a main contractor, and they were paid weekly. At the end of the week, the employer sent to the Exchequer the tax deducted and the national insurance contributions. The workmen were protected by the labour laws then appertaining and by the benefits flowing from the social security system.
	At some point in the 1960s, something known as "the lump" became almost a public scandal. I recollect television programmes on the effect of the lump—in other words, of payment in cash to virtually uncertified workers. The Revenue had virtually no idea whatsoever what the position was, how many people were employed and what tax should be paid. And of course, the workers themselves had no protection whatsoever against unscrupulous employers.
	The then Government sought to get hold of the situation through the Finance Act 1970. A scheme was introduced involving issuing a 714 certificate in respect of those who were believed to be genuinely self-employed and genuinely independent contractors. They were paid gross by the main contractor, and had to account for tax in the normal way, as any self-employed person does. If they could not do so, they were issued an SC60 contract, tax was deducted at source and the matter was sorted out—or not—at a later date. Of course, the employer still did not pay any employers national insurance contributions.
	It would seem that for many years, Governments did not have a clue as to how many people were employed and how many were self-employed. I recently tabled a parliamentary question on this matter, but figures for the self-employed in the construction industry could be given only from 1994. It seems that there are no figures for before that time, which is perhaps because there was a different system, or because the information was just unknown.
	Governments have recognised the problems, and in that respect I give credit to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who in the mid-1990s sought to enforce the existing system. In essence, enforcement turns on proper definitions, so that a judgment can be made as to whether someone is properly self-employed or their status is in fact a charade. When such enforcement and compliance was taking place, a remarkable rise took place in the number of those listed as employed, rather than as self-employed.
	The new construction industry scheme—the CIS4 scheme—involved the issuing of some 800,000 cards in a little more than a year. That is an enormous number of cards to justify the "ticket to ride" to self-employment. The problem appears to have returned to a considerable extent in the past few years. Indeed, in the mid-1990s about half of those in the construction industry were listed as self-employed.
	On the face of it, the new scheme was an attempt to regularise the position, but it appears not to have worked. Other Members have dealt with this issue in recent times. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) has spoken of the effect of bogus self-employment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), who is in his place, initiated a debate on this subject and on the work of Dr. Harvey in particular. Dr. Harvey's main contention was that mass false self-employment has damaged the construction industry. He argued that it has contributed to skills shortages, whereby major employers no longer invest in training. That and low capital investment are the classic ingredients for low productivity.
	The Government have recognised the problems. As I said, a further scheme will be implemented in 2005. In 1998, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister produced a report entitled "Rethinking Construction", which contained plenty of worthy ideas. Ultimately, however, unless we get to task with the issue of employment and self-employment, all the other matters will fall by the wayside.
	One of those matters is health and safety. The building industry has acquired an appalling record over the years. Indeed, last year, there were 85 fatalities and 4,862 serious injuries. It is right to say that the Health and Safety Executive has taken dynamic action to bring that down by on-the-spot inspections of sites and by seeking a greater degree of compliance. The industry itself has set targets to reduce the fatalities and injuries by a considerable degree over the next five years.
	The new scheme outlined by the Government is based on verification. It switches the burden from the subcontractor to the main contractor. If that is the case, it is a very positive move forward, which means that the buck will stop with the main contractor, who has many incentives to act in a responsible way. He will have a further responsibility to rein in the subcontractors who are not always so responsible.

John Cryer: Would my hon. Friend argue that the proposed scheme will, down the line, eventually lead to more direct employment instead of the culture of sub-contracting that we see at the moment?

Alan Hurst: I am grateful for that intervention, and that would certainly be my hope. Narrowing down the number of players, as it were, who are obliged to verify is bound to make the industry wonder whether it would be better off employing people directly, rather than going through a charade of self-employment through subcontractors or directly self-employing workmen. However, unless that is followed through by inspection, it will fail. If there is no rigorous check and verification of returns, there will be no incentive for people to get it right.
	Successive Governments have lightly jousted with the problems of the construction industry for more than 30 years. During that time, workers have lost employment rights, sick pay, redundancy pay and pensions. Training has fallen away and apprenticeships have disappeared. Safety at work remains a mortal problem and the Exchequer has lost billions of pounds over that period. Now is the time to resolve the dilemma created by false self-employment. We need a test to determine self-employment that is open, clear, logical and obvious. At the risk of offending modernisers among Government Law Officers, I shall use a legal maxim that would resolve the conundrum: res ipsa loquitor—let the facts speak for themselves—or, to use a more current term, "get real".

Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on securing the debate. He raises some important issues and I very much welcome this opportunity to explain to my hon. Friends and the House how the Government intend to carry forward this important work.
	The construction industry is a vital sector of the British economy and central to the Government's commitment to public services. It is an industry that can offer great opportunities for employment and training, and for businesses to succeed. More than 1.5 million people work within the construction sector at any one time and it is clear that, unless the industry can encourage people to work in construction, there will be insufficient labour to fulfil the contracts.
	Before I explain to the House the challenges that the Government clearly face, I want to outline the principles that we intend to follow. I am pleased to say that I am echoing what my hon. Friend touched on in his speech about the need to adhere to those principles.
	The challenge for the Government is how to ensure that we have a framework in place that gives the industry the flexibility that it needs to respond to the varying commercial pressures that it faces, and the demands placed upon it. We also have a duty to ensure that that flexibility does not come at the cost of employment rights, safety, training or, indeed, the appropriate level of taxation.
	Central to tackling the issues that my hon. Friend outlined in his speech is the issue of employment status, which is decided on the facts. It is for the workers and those for whom they work to agree the terms and conditions under which work will be done. If the agreed terms and conditions amount to employment, rights flow from that. The employer will automatically have certain responsibilities to the employee, including operating pay-as-you-earn to collect the right amount of tax at the right time, and deducting and accounting for national insurance class 1 contributions. They also include the provision of employment rights and benefits.
	If the agreed terms and conditions amount to self-employment, the worker will assume responsibilities for their own tax and national insurance contributions through the self-assessment scheme, and the worker will normally have to provide their own financial cushion to cover holiday or sickness periods. In construction, we have enabled the self-employed to comply with their tax and national insurance responsibilities through the construction industry scheme.
	My hon. Friend touched on Dr. Harvey's report, which was very interesting. Among other issues, my hon. Friend also touched on the amount of tax that Dr. Harvey identified as being at risk. While the Government do not agree with all of the facts that Dr. Harvey considered in order to reach that figure, we do not dispute that some tax and national insurance is lost. That feeds through into employment, training and safety in the workplace.
	Employment status in the UK, as in many other countries, is determined on a case law approach for tax, national insurance and employment rights. The case law approach provides flexibility, but we also recognise that it can mean that it is difficult for some to determine the employment status of their workers. As a Government, we have always recognised that in construction, as with any business sector, there are those who do not pay the right tax and national insurance because they have got their employment status wrong. The consequences of that are important as they affect the individual's employment rights and access to certain benefits, and may also mean a loss of tax to the Exchequer.
	There is a distinction, of course, between those who find it difficult to determine the employment status of their workers and those who make little or no attempt to get the status right. For most engagements, it is clear whether someone is working on an employed or a self-employed basis. But where there is doubt, the Inland Revenue provides extensive guidance and support to help to determine status. That is why the Revenue has a compliance regime to meet the challenge of those who do not meet their responsibilities.
	Despite that extensive support, there are still those who get employment status wrong. It would seem that the incidence of incorrectly determined status is higher in construction than in many other sectors. Therefore, I would also like to take this opportunity to tell the House about the work that the Revenue has done in the last couple of years. I have explained that an individual's employment status is determined using a case law approach. The Revenue has developed a computer-based tool to determine employment status. The tool asks a series of questions about the engagement and, after weighing the facts of the case, will provide guidance on the individual's employment status. The Revenue hopes to start making the software available to its staff later this year and to talk to industry about the possibility of making the tool available externally at some point in the future, perhaps via the internet. That would enable us to ensure that consistent advice is given on employment status, thus providing far greater potential to get it right in the first place. However, my hon. Friend is right to ask whether we are doing enough. Despite the help and guidance that we provide, and despite the threat of financial penalties, it is clear that some employers continue to perpetuate a culture where some workers are paying the wrong tax and the wrong national insurance contributions. That denies them access to the employment rights and benefits that they deserve. My officials meet regularly with representatives from construction and are told that the pressure for false self-employment comes from both contractors and the workers themselves. For instance, we are told that it is the only way that contracts can be won and then fulfilled, that contractors would be happy to tax on the right basis if all of their competitors did, and that the status is too confusing to get right.
	I shall deal with those points. I have already told the House of the extensive guidance that is available, and of the compliance regime for the industry. I have also mentioned the new computerised employment status tool that is being developed, which will support the guidance even further. However, as my hon. Friend noted, it is time that all contractors took the issue of employment status seriously. Following a period of consultation on the review of the construction industry scheme, we announced measures that will bring employment status to the forefront of contractors' minds. I put that in a delicate manner.
	A special tax deduction scheme for the construction industry has existed since 1972 to tackle the culture of a cash economy and tax evasion. The present construction industry scheme, known as CIS, was introduced by the Government in August 1999 to safeguard tax revenue previously lost through abuse of the last scheme.
	However, CIS is a paper-based system that requires all subcontractors in the construction industry to hold a registration card—the CIS4 card—or a gross payment certificate. The scheme requires vouchers to be completed for all payments made by contractors to subcontractors.
	Unfortunately, there is a myth in the industry that a CIS4 card is a certificate of self-employment. Rather as a growing child holds on to the idea of the tooth fairy, many like to believe the CIS4 legend—perhaps they feel that there is greater financial reward in perpetuating that myth. We are openly told on many occasions that contractors treat the CIS4 card as a certificate of self-employment, even though they know full well that it is not. The cards simply allow a worker to work on a self-employed basis, if that is their correct status.
	My hon. Friend touched on the large number of CIS4 cards in circulation. There can be many reasons for that. For instance, we believe that many cards are not used regularly. The cards are issued to individuals, partnerships or companies and they do not have an expiry date. They are not supposed to be proof that a person is definitely self-employed, nor do they convey that status. Some people may have the certificate, but only undertake work at the margins of construction. However, they need the card for that work.
	I turn now to the final point that my hon. Friend made. One of the main aims of the construction industry review is to help construction businesses to get the employment status of their workers right. The consultation paper therefore proposed a new employment status declaration. When the new scheme is introduced, contractors will have to declare that the subcontractors whom they are paying are correctly within the scheme and are not employees. That declaration will be policed—a point made by my hon. Friend—to ensure that it is not being made lightly and that it is being applied.
	To touch on other points that my hon. Friend made, the new system will go further and will enable us—the Inland Revenue, as the tax-collecting authority—to improve risk assessment and trend analysis to find non-compliance on employment status and to deal with it quickly.
	Where does that leave us? What will happen next? I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to learn that we have no plans to change our approach. Determining employment status is the correct way to deal with the issue, although we continue to keep an open mind, as is shown by the initiatives that I have described. We continue to keep the matter under close review across Government to make sure that people are paying the right amount of tax and national insurance contributions and receiving the correct employment rights and training, and that they have access to benefits. All Departments will continue to work together. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Inland Revenue will not hesitate, and nor shall I, to encourage or enforce compliance as necessary.
	I assure my hon. Friends that we take employment status seriously and that we will not hesitate to make further changes, if necessary, in the construction industry or anywhere else. It is vitally important that people fulfil their responsibilities and that an industry that supports many people can make progress with training, safety and proper employment arrangements. Dealing with employment status presents us with an opportunity and I intend to see it through.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Ten o'clock.